text:
# Slow dynamics and aging of a confined granular flow

## I Introduction

Granular flows are presently at the focus of many attentions PDM . The classical model for granular media stability was proposed at the end of the XVIIIth century by Ch. A. de Coulomb who revealed a strong analogy between the failure properties of a granular assembly and the phenomenology of solid on solid friction. Modern developments have elaborated sophisticated empirical approaches around this fundamental idea Wood  but so far there is no deep physical understanding nor rigorous derivation describing the passage from the granular level description to a set of evolution equations involving macroscopic quantities such as stress, strain or packing fraction. Furthermore, there is an additional difficulty to apprehend complex behaviors such as aging under stress or to account for the influence of external parameters such as surrounding humidity which effects are often noticed in practice. Note that similar questions are still under active consideration in the field of tribology Berthoud99 ; Crassous99 ; Riedo02 , but in the case of granular assemblies, a supplementary difficulty lies in the fragile character of granular structures which can be easily modified under the action of external constraints.

Dynamical behavior of slowly driven granular materials was investigated by different groups both in compression and/or in shearing experiments Gollub97 ; Horwarth96 ; Albert99 ; Lubert . Here we present an experimental situation of the same type, but in a quite different geometry. We investigate the rheology of a granular assembly confined in a cylindrical column and pushed vertically from the bottom. The resistance to vertical motion as well as the blocking/unblocking transitions reveals a phenomenology possibly shared by many confined granular assemblies. Note that this column configuration may help to understand several practical situations like pipe flows Hulin , compaction under stress or dense granular paste extrusion. A previous investigation of the same display was made in 2D LaKolb99  and also in 3D Ovarlez01  as a preliminary report, and more recently see refs Bertho03 ; Landry . Those contributions have shown a rich phenomenology partly sorted by the solid friction properties of the grains and the boundaries. The importance of surrounding humidity was also evidenced Ovarlez01  as it would strongly influence the rheology of the granular column. In this report, we push further the investigation as we change the column material, the beads characteristics and size dispersity, under various humidity conditions. We also propose to compare our data with the outcome of a simple numerical model of isotropic elasticity.

In the classical situation of newtonian fluid pushed by a piston (typically in a syringe), one would obtain a relation between pressure and flow rate, which is characterized by a fluid constitutive parameter: the viscosity. For an isotropic elastic medium the resistance to pushing would depend on the material Poisson’s ratio and wall frictional properties Ovarlez03 ; OvarlezSimuls  (we will detail this question further in the text). For a granular material, the situation is a priori more complex since the piling structure can be modified so as to adapt to the external constraints. Friction at the walls may also create internal granular recirculation flows LaKolb99 . Therefore it is an important but difficult matter to clarify the rheology of this system by sorting the respective influence of grain-boundary friction versus bulk structural changes. Along this line we started with a simple situation of weakly frictional steel beads with frictional boundaries. A second situation is studied where the granular material is made of rugous polydisperse glass beads.

## II Display

Most experiments are performed on dry, non cohesive and monodisperse steel beads of diameter $`d=1.58`$ mm piled into a vertical duralumin or brass cylinder of diameter $`D=36`$ mm. We also perform a series of experiments on a miscellany of glass beads of three diameters (1.5 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm) with equal volume of each kind, in a PMMA cylinder. The column is closed at the bottom by a movable brass piston avoiding contact with the column (diameter mismatch is $`0.5`$ mm). A force probe of stiffness $`k=40000`$ $`\text{N.m}^1`$ is located under the piston and is pushed at a constant driving velocity $`V`$ (between $`5`$ $`\text{nm.s}^1`$ and $`100`$ $`\mu \text{m.s}^1`$) via a stepping motor (see Fig. 1). The resistance force $`F`$ encountered by the piston is measured as a function of time. We also monitor the relative humidity ($`\chi `$) and the surrounding temperature. We work in the range $`35\%<\chi <75\%`$, as well as in dry air ($`\chi <3\%`$) and humid air ($`\chi =90\%`$). Actually, except for the dry and humid situation, we do not regulate this last parameter ($`\chi `$) but we record its values close to the experimental set-up. We obtain dry air by having a weak air flux ($`250\text{ml.min}^1`$) flow into a cylinder filled with silica. We obtain humid air by making a weak air flux ($`250\text{ml.min}^1`$) bubble through water. Then, for the duration of an experiment, weak fluxes of humid or dry air are set to flow through the column from top to bottom, maintaining a constant and homogeneous level of humidity. Note that a stationary relative humidity is reached in a few minutes. We start our experiments when this stationary level is attained. We verified that the weak air flux does not perturb the system: we notice no evolution of the force when the flux is stopped as long as relative humidity remains unchanged. Temperature is kept at $`(20\pm 1)`$˚C. We actually find no correlation between the force fluctuations and the temperature variations in this range.

Note that the brass and duralumin cylinders have very different surface properties (Fig. 2). The duralumin cylinder is rough cast, and its roughness is $`400`$nm. The brass cylinder was machine-turned, and has mean roughness $`7\mu `$m with undulations of wavelength $`100\mu `$m and depth $`25\mu `$m.

In order to compare precisely rheological properties of granular assemblies to solid friction properties, we built a special device (called ”the slider”, see Fig. 1 inset) designed to study the tribology of bead/wall contact. This device is set to apply a constant normal load ($`F_N=2`$ $`N`$) on three steel beads sliding vertically on the cylinder’s wall. Then, the dynamical evolution of the resistance force encountered by the piston pushing a granular material can be compared to the slider’s friction resistance driven in the same conditions.

Two granular systems will be studied. First a model assembly of monodisperse steel spheres and second a polydisperse assembly of rough glass beads. The largest part of this report is devoted to the monodisperse assembly.

## III Monodisperse steel beads

We now report on the simplest situation i.e. monodisperse low frictional steel beads in a duralumin or brass cylinder. We observe two distinct dynamical stationary regimes (Fig. 3): for high driving velocities, the motion is characterized by a steady-sliding and a constant pushing force; for low velocities, the system undergoes a dynamic instability characterized by a stick-slip motion.

We first notice that as far as averaged packing fraction and pushing force are concerned, whatever the initial state of preparation is, the same stationary regime is reached (Fig. 4). When a dense packing ($`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }=65.0\pm 0.5\%`$) is prepared by rain-filling, the force in the steady sliding regime increases up to a maximum, then decreases slowly for a piston displacement of about 3 mm. At this point where a stationary value $`\overline{F}`$ of the force is attained, the average packing fraction $`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }`$ is $`62.5\pm 0.5\%`$. In the case of an initially loose packing ($`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }=59.0\pm 0.5\%`$) prepared by using an inner cylinder slowly removed after filling, the force in the steady sliding regime increases monotonically for a 3 mm displacement before the same stationary value $`\overline{F}`$ of force is reached. This state is also characterized by a $`62.5\%`$ packing fraction. For all preparations, we always get a stationary regime characterized by the same pushing force $`\overline{F}`$, which depends on driving velocity $`V`$, relative humidity $`\chi `$ and packing’s height $`H`$, as well as the same packing fraction ($`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }=62.5\pm 0.5\%`$), independent of $`V`$, $`\chi `$ and $`H`$. The stick-slip regime displays a similar phenomenology: the piling reaches a stationary packing fraction of $`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }=62.5\pm 0.5\%`$; in the transitory regime, the pushing force for dense packing displays a maximum and for a loose packing shows a monotonous increase. In section III.1.1 we propose an explanation for the phenomenology of the transitory regimes.

In the following, we present the phenomenology observed in the steady-sliding and the stick-slip regime, when the stationary state is attained. For each regime, we first focus on the mechanical properties and propose a model accounting for friction at the walls and bulk properties; we then study and analyse the rheological properties. In a third section, we point out ambiguity of dependence on relative humidity. We then analyse our results in a standard solid on solid friction framework (the Dieterich-Ruina model). Finally, we study the transition from steady-sliding to stick-slip.

### III.1 Steady-sliding

For a given height of beads in the column, at given driving velocity $`V`$ and relative humidity $`\chi `$, the force in the steady sliding regime is constant at about $`2\%`$ (Fig. 5a), and its distribution around mean value $`\overline{F}`$ is nearly gaussian.

Next, we study the mean pushing force $`\overline{F}`$ behavior as a function of the packing height, the driving velocity and the relative humidity.

#### III.1.1 Mechanical properties

For a vertically pushed granular assembly, the driving force exerted by the piston is screened due to friction with the walls. To evaluate this effect, the mean resistance force $`\overline{F}`$ in the steady-sliding regime is measured as a function of the packing height (see Fig. 6).

The resistance force $`\overline{F}`$ increases very rapidly with the packing’s height $`H`$. Following the standard Janssen screening picture, this strong resistance to motion is due to the leaning of the granular material on the walls created by the horizontal redirection of vertical stress in association with solid friction at the sidewalls. It means that we may relate horizontal and vertical stresses averaged on a slice at height $`z`$ by an effective relation:

$$\sigma _{zz}(z)=K\sigma _{rr}(z)$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is called Janssen’s redirection constant. At the walls, we suppose a sliding of the granular material at a velocity $`V_0`$ (the driving velocity); the shearing stress is then

$$\sigma _{rz}(z)=ϵ\mu _d(V_0)\sigma _{rr}(z)$$
(2)
where $`\mu _d(V_0)`$ is the dynamic coefficient of friction between the beads and the cylinder’s wall at a velocity $`V_0`$. The constant $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ is introduced in order to differentiate between pushing and pulling experiments. When $`ϵ=+1,`$ the granular material is moving upwards and friction is fully mobilized downwards (our pushing experiment) and when $`ϵ=1,`$ the granular is moving downwards and friction is fully mobilized upwards.

The force $`\overline{F}_\epsilon `$ exerted by the grains on the piston can be derived from equilibrium equations for all slices, thus we obtain:

$$\overline{F}_ϵ=\varrho g\lambda \pi R^2\times ϵ(\mathrm{exp}(ϵ\frac{H}{\lambda })1)$$
(3)
where $`\varrho `$ is the mass density of the granular material, $`R`$ is the cylinder radius and $`g`$ the acceleration of gravity. The length $`\lambda =R/2K\mu _d(V_0)`$ is the effective screening length.

It is easily seen from (3) that when $`ϵ=+1`$, any slight change in $`\mu `$ or $`K`$ is exponentially amplified with a drastic influence on the pushing force $`\overline{F}`$. In the steady state regime, the experimental data obtained for a given pushing velocity $`V`$ can be fitted by relation (3) by adjusting only one parameter i.e.

$$p_{+1}=K\times \mu _d(V_0)$$
(4)
where $`\mu _d(V_0)`$ is the dynamic coefficient of friction at velocity $`V_0`$.
We see on Fig. 6 that the data are well fitted by eq. (3), and, for a relative humidity $`\chi =45\%`$, for steel beads in the duralumin cylinder, we obtain $`p_{+1}=0.140\pm 0.001`$ at $`V_{up}=16\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ and $`p_{+1}=0.146\pm 0.001`$ at $`V_{up}=100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$.

We are now able to propose an interpretation of the features observed for different initial packing fractions within Janssen’s framework. Since Janssen’s coefficient $`K`$ is an increasing function of the packing fraction, as it was shown previously Vanel99 ; Ovarlez03 , the resistance force of an initially dense packing displays a maximum, as a dense packing leans more efficiently on walls than a loose one; the pushing force then decreases while the packing loosens (i.e. while $`K`$ decreases). On the other hand, for an initially loose packing the resisting force in the transitory regime will increase while the packing densifies (i.e. while $`K`$ increases).
For an initially dense packing, we extract a parameter $`p_{+1}^{max}`$ from a fit of the pushing force maximum value in the transitory regime with formula (3): we obtain $`p_{+1}^{max}0.18`$ at $`V_{up}=16\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ and $`p_{+1}^{max}0.18`$ at $`V_{up}=100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$; as this experiment was not repeated sufficiently, we do not have uncertainties on these values. Nevertheless, we notice that the $`p_{+1}^{max}`$ value is roughly 25% higher than the $`p_{+1}`$ stationary value, whatever the velocity is. These results are consistent with a $`K`$ dependence on compacity $`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }`$ derived in Ovarlez03  for an assembly of monodisperse glass beads, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }K/K5\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{\_}{\nu }/\stackrel{\_}{\nu }`$; for initial compacity $`65\%`$ and steady-state compacity $`62.5\%`$, this empirical formula actually leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }K/K0.2`$. Therefore, in the Janssen framework, we are led to attribute the difference between maximum force and stationary force to a difference in stress redirection (i.e. in $`K`$) due to a difference in compacity. The force history in the transitory regime would then just reflect the compacity history.

As a check of consistency, we perform the following dynamical experiment. First, the granular column is pushed upwards in order to mobilize the friction forces downwards and far enough to reach the steady state compacity. Starting from this situation, the friction forces at the walls are reversed by moving the piston downwards at a constant velocity $`V_{down}=16\mu \text{m.s}^1`$, until a stationary regime is attained. Note that this stationary regime is characterized by the same compacity $`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }62.5\%`$ as in the pushing situation. Following relation (3), this procedure would imply a change of $`ϵ`$ from $`1`$ to $`1`$, and consequently, the dynamical force on the piston should decrease from $`\overline{F}_{+1}`$ to $`\overline{F}_1`$. In Fig. 7 the pushing force $`\overline{F}_1`$ is measured for different packing heights $`H`$. The fit of experimental results with eq. (3) gives $`p_1(16\mu \text{m.s}^1)=0.156\pm 0.002`$ which is $`10\%`$ larger than $`p_{+1}(16\mu \text{m.s}^1)`$. This difference, though small, can be observed out of uncertainties, and is systematic. It cannot be due to a slight change in compacity $`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }`$ as from relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }K/K5\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{\_}{\nu }/\stackrel{\_}{\nu }`$, we would expect a 2% variation in compacity between the pushing and the pulling experiment, which would be observed; we actually measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{\_}{\nu }/\stackrel{\_}{\nu }=0\pm 1\%`$. According to Janssen’s picture, this would imply that vertical stress redirection is more efficient in the downward pulling situation. We believe this is a clear evidence of a granular structuration effects but its also shows that this effect is not dominant: it affects only $`10\%`$ of the average mechanical parameter $`K`$.

We have shown in another report that in a Janssen experiment, an isotropic homogeneous elastic material can also be characterized by stress redirection properties Ovarlez03 . For a granular column at high depth an effective relation:

$$\sigma _{zz}=K_{el}\sigma _{rr}$$
(5)
is obtained with

$$K_{el}=\nu _p/(1\nu _p)$$
(6)
where $`\nu _p`$ is the material’s Poisson coefficient. This actually leads to a curve similar to Janssen’s saturation curve as long as friction at the walls is small (typically less than $`0.5`$).
In order to get the isotropic homogeneous elasticity prediction for the pushing experiment, we perform a series of numerical simulations using Finite Element Method Castem . The column is modelled as an isotropic elastic medium. We vary the friction at the walls $`\mu _d`$, the Young modulus $`E`$ and the Poisson coefficient $`\nu _p`$. We impose a rigid, either perfectly stick or perfectly slip bottom. We find no appreciable difference between these two previous cases. The condition $`\sigma _{rz}=\mu _d\sigma _{rr}`$ is imposed everywhere at the walls (for the pulling situation, we impose $`\sigma _{rz}=+\mu _d\sigma _{rr}`$). The cylinder is modelled as a duralumin elastic medium. As long as the Young modulus $`E`$ of the elastic medium is less than $`500`$ MPa, which is usually the case for granular media, we find no dependence of the results on $`E`$. We verified that in all the simulations we performed, there is no traction in the elastic medium, so that this could be a fair modelling for a granular material.

We find no appreciable difference between the elastic prediction (Fig. 8) and the curve given by eq. (3) with $`K=K_{el}`$. Therefore, regarding the dependence of the stationary state force $`\overline{F}`$ on the height of beads, our system cannot be distinguished from an elastic medium.

Note that finite element simulations show that the presence of a rigid bottom implies that the effective Janssen’s parameter $`K_{eff}`$ extracted from Janssen’s scaling for the pulling situation is higher than $`K_{el}`$ Ovarlez03 , whereas for the pushing $`K_{eff}K_{el}`$ (as can be seen on Fig. 8: the fit of the elastic curve with $`K=K_{el}`$ is good). Details on this numerical work will be given elsewhere OvarlezSimuls . Actually, if we adjust the elastic predictions for pushing and pulling experiments with an elastic material of Poisson coefficient $`\nu _p=0.45`$, eq. (3) yields a Janssen’s constant $`K_{eff}`$ for the pushing which is about $`3\%`$ lower than $`K_{eff}`$ for the pulling. This is qualitatively (though not quantitatively) in agreement with the experimental results. Then isotropic elasticity can be a good framework only if we neglect the existence of bulk structuration effects inducing differences in the effective Poisson coefficient of the material between the pulling and the pushing. Note that in this case, an isotropic modelling of the granular material is somehow questionable.

In a previous study Vanel99 , it was found that the Janssen picture has a general tendency to slightly underestimate the stress below a granular column for a homogeneous packing of glass beads. We have showed in another report that it is no more true as the friction at walls is very well controlled. Therefore, this model, though elementary, seems a fair base for analysis and provides an analytical expression from which constitutive rheological parameters can be extracted. A central question is still that the fitting parameters $`p=K\times \mu _d`$ extracted from the model does not allow to distinguish between $`\mu _d`$ and $`K`$ separately.

In the following, we will show experiments which aim at sorting out the relative contributions of wall-bead interactions (i.e. $`\mu _d`$) and bulk properties (i.e. $`K`$) which have an influence on the rheological properties when velocity and relative humidity are changed.

#### III.1.2 Rheological properties

The mean resistance force $`\overline{F}`$ in the steady-sliding regime increases strongly when the velocity and the relative humidity are increased. In the duralumin column (Fig. 9), the resistance force $`\overline{F}`$ at velocity $`V=100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ is $`60\%`$ higher for relative humidity $`\chi =73\%`$ than for $`\chi =40\%`$; near the transition to the stick-slip regime ($`V=1\mu \text{m.s}^1`$), dependence of $`\overline{F}`$ on $`\chi `$ is much less important, and there is actually no difference in $`\overline{F}`$ values for $`\chi `$ varying between $`40\%`$ and $`73\%`$. Another important feature is that the increase of $`\overline{F}`$ with velocity is sharper when $`\chi `$ is higher. In the brass column (Fig. 10), the mean resistance force $`\overline{F}`$ also increases with relative humidity $`\chi `$, but now the variation coefficient with velocity (the slope on Fig. 10) does not seem to depend on $`\chi `$. Moreover, for a velocity $`V=100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$, the $`\overline{F}`$ increase is only $`15\%`$ from dry to humid ($`\chi =90\%`$) atmosphere.

The fit of $`\overline{F}`$ with Janssen’s formula adapted to the pushing case of eq. (3) gives parameter $`K\mu _d(V)`$ for different relative humidities $`\chi `$. The fundamental differences of behavior in the steady sliding regime between the duralumin column and the brass column for a same granular material, at same density, suggest that the variations in $`\chi `$ and velocity have an influence mainly on the coefficient of friction $`\mu _d`$ at the walls, and little on mechanical properties of the granular material (i.e. $`K`$). Therefore, in the following analysis, we will consider $`K`$ as a constant at first order of approximation.

#### Steel/duralumin

Fig. 9 shows that dynamical parameter $`K\mu _d`$ is globally less important in a dry atmosphere than in the ambient atmosphere. In ambient atmosphere ($`40\%<\chi <73\%`$), a change in $`\chi `$ seems to change only the variation coefficient of $`K\mu _d`$ with velocity: i.e. the increase of $`K\mu _d`$ with velocity is sharper when $`\chi `$ is higher. This phenomenon could be interpreted as a viscous contribution of the water condensed at the contacts. Note that this phenomenology contrasts with the observations of Riedo et al. Riedo02  who find, for solid on solid nanoscopic sliding friction measurements, that in all the systems they study, of various wettability, the effect of a humidity increase is to add a negative value to the coefficient of friction force dependence on logarithm of velocity. Table 1 shows the results of a rough logarithmic fit of data with $`\mu _d(V)=\mu _0+(ab)\mathrm{ln}(V/V_0)`$. We use the parameter $`(ab)`$ as a standard reference to the Dieterich-Ruina model Dieterich79 ; Ruina .

We observe that the increase rate $`K(ab)`$ of $`K\mu _d`$ with the logarithm of velocity is multiplied by $`7`$ when $`\chi `$ increases from $`40\%`$ to $`72\%`$.

In order to compare these results with those obtained in a solid on solid friction experiment, we need to evaluate Janssen’s parameter $`K`$. We extract $`K`$ from a classical Janssen experiment Ovarlez03  and we obtain: $`K\mu _s=0.184\pm 0.002`$ for a mean aging time of $`40`$ seconds. From the measurement of static friction, using the sliding angle of a three bead tripod, we extract $`K=1.02\pm 0.07`$.
We suppose $`K`$ is constant and is not affected by any variation in relative humidity nor velocity. The dynamical coefficient of friction obtained in a solid on solid friction experiment with the slider (Fig. 1 inset) is then compared on Fig. 11 with the one extracted from a fit of the resistance force with formula (3). Note that the uncertainty on $`\mu _d`$ extracted from formula (3) is mainly systematic (coming from uncertainties on $`K`$, which come themselves from uncertainty on static friction measurements). We observe that the dynamical coefficients of friction measured in a solid on solid experiment increase slightly more strongly with velocity than the one extracted from the resistance force of the granular material. But importantly, the increase of $`\mu _d`$ with relative humidity $`\chi `$ is the same in both cases.
In this analysis we assumed a constant value for Janssen’s coefficient $`K`$. We can also imagine a slight decrease of $`K`$ with increasing velocity so that the solid on solid $`\mu _d`$ would match the one extracted from the pushing experiment. However, we will remain prudent as the mean pressure contact on beads in the solid on solid experiment is much higher than in the granular column, which may cause quantitative differences between friction properties. More precisely, at the bottom of the column, for a pushing force $`\overline{F}=10`$N, the mean contact force per bead is about $`20`$mN; a Hertz contact would give mean contact pressure $`\overline{p}300`$MPa. For a contact force per bead of $`2`$N (the slider case), a Hertz contact would give $`\overline{p}1300`$MPa.

#### Steel/brass

In the brass column, we observe the same phenomenology as in the duralumin one, i.e. an increase of $`K\mu _d`$ with velocity and relative humidity $`\chi `$. The effect of a change in $`\chi `$ is yet less important than in the duralumin column, as the coefficient $`K\mu _d`$ increases only by $`15\%`$ at velocity $`V=100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ when $`\chi `$ increases from $`0\%`$ to $`90\%`$. A major difference with the duralumin column is that in the brass column, a variation in $`\chi `$ seems to induce a variation of friction but hardly affects the coefficient of variation with velocity (the slope). Table 2 shows the results of a logarithmic fit of the data with the function: $`\mu _d(V)=\mu _0+(ab)\mathrm{ln}(V/V_0)`$. We observe indeed that the slope $`K(ab)`$ of $`K\mu _d`$ with the logarithm of velocity does not practically vary with relative humidity $`\chi `$, and is much weaker than in the duralumin column.

The comparison with the slider, and the differences between the duralumin and bras columns, suggest that the rheological properties in the steady-sliding regime are dominated by the friction properties at the walls. We now investigate the stick-slip regime.

### III.2 Stick-slip regime

In the stick-slip regime, for a given height of beads in the column and at given driving velocity $`V`$ and relative humidity $`\chi `$, the maximum force before a slip and the minimum force at the end of a slip are constant within $`2\%`$ (Fig. 5b). Their distribution around mean values $`F_{max}`$ and $`F_{min}`$ is nearly gaussian.
The dynamical evolution $`F(t)`$ of the pushing force during the slip phase can be translated into a function of the granular material instantaneous velocity. Motion of the granular material at velocity $`V`$ induces a variation $`\text{d}F=k(V_0V)\text{d}t`$ of resistance force during time $`\text{d}t`$, where $`k`$ is the force probe stiffness and $`V_0`$ the driving velocity; we thus obtain $`V(t)=V_0\text{d}F/k\text{d}t`$. We see (Fig. 12) that the acceleration and deceleration phases are nearly symmetric. This phenomenology is currently observed in solid friction experiments. This is in contrast with previous plane shearing experiments of granular materials Gollub97  in which the deceleration phase would occur in two steps, first fast and then slow. However, a major difference is that in the latter case, the displacements during slippage are millimetric (a grain size) whereas in our experiment, they are micrometric ($`30\mu `$m on Fig. 12). As a consequence, the evolution of forces observed during a slip seems to reflect the slippage of grain contacts at the walls. The maximum velocities obtained during the slip phase are of a few hundred $`\mu \text{m.s}^1`$. We did not study systematically the variation of instantaneous velocity with bead height nor with driving velocity.

In the following, we report on the $`F_{max}`$ and $`F_{min}`$ properties as a function of the packing height, the driving velocity and the relative humidity.

#### III.2.1 Mechanical properties

In the stick-slip domain, the mean maximum and minimum resistance forces $`F_{max}`$ and $`F_{min}`$ are measured as functions of the packing height (see Fig. 13), but now we choose to perform our experiments not at a constant velocity $`V`$, but at constant stick time $`t_{stick}`$ and we explain why in the following.

Experimentally we find that the resistance forces $`F_{max}`$ and $`F_{min}`$ increase exponentially with the packing’s height $`H`$. The data can actually be fitted by a formula of type eq. (3), but the parameter $`p_{+1}`$ extracted may be different and should not depend on $`\mu _d(V_0)`$ as the granular material is not sliding during stick, and does not slide at driving velocity $`V_0`$ during slip.

The model can actually be simply modified for this situation. In the stick-slip regime, when the resistance force $`F(t)`$ is equal to $`F_{max}`$, the material just starts slipping, which means that static friction is fully mobilized at this instant for each contact. So we can write $`\sigma _{rz}=\mu _s\sigma _{rr}`$ everywhere at the walls, where $`\mu _s`$ is static friction between beads and the cylinder’s walls. Static friction coefficients are known to evolve in time Baumberger97 , we then have to include aging effects. As the granular material was at rest in the column since the previous slip, aging time in this situation is the time of stick:

$$t_{stick}=\frac{F_{max}F_{min}}{kV_0}$$
(7)
So the final formula for $`F_{max}`$ in the Janssen framework is:

$$F^ϵ=\varrho g\lambda \pi R^2\times ϵ(\mathrm{exp}(ϵ\frac{H}{\lambda })1)$$
(8)
where the screening length is now $`\lambda =R/2K\mu _s(t_{stick})`$. Here again, $`ϵ=+1`$ for a pushing experiment (i.e. $`F_{max}=F^{+1}`$), $`ϵ=1`$ for a Janssen experiment. The choice of imposing a constant stick-time $`t_{stick}`$ instead of constant driving velocity $`V_0`$ for the experiments in the stick-slip regime is now justified by the dependence of $`\mu _s`$ on $`t_{stick}`$, whereas $`\mu _d`$ depends on $`V_0`$.

In the steady state regime, the experimental data obtained for a given stick-time $`t_{stick}`$ can be fitted by relation (8) by adjusting only one parameter i.e. $`p_{+1}=K\times \mu _s(t_{stick})`$ where $`\mu _s(t_{stick})`$ is the static coefficient of friction for an aging time $`t_{stick}`$. For the data of Fig. 13 obtained for a relative humidity $`\chi =40\%`$ with a mean stick time of $`40`$s, we find $`p_{+1}=0.184\pm 0.002`$ from $`F_{max}`$ ($`F^{+1}`$ in eq. (8). Note that, though friction is not fully mobilized when $`F=F_{min}`$, the fit of $`F_{min}`$ with eq. (8) is good (Fig. 13); we obtain a parameter $`p_{+1}=0.148\pm 0.002`$ which should not be related to $`\mu _s(t_{stick})`$ in that case.

As a check of consistency, we perform the following dynamical experiment in the stick-slip regime. First, the granular column is pushed upwards in order to mobilize the friction forces downwards and to reach the steady state compacity; $`F_{max}`$ (referred to as (a) on Fig. 14) is then measured for constant stick time $`t_{stick}`$. Starting from this situation, the friction forces are reversed at the walls by moving the piston downwards. We then measure the force $`F_{min}`$ of the first slip (referred to as (b) on Fig. 14) after the same time $`t_{stick}`$. Note that the roles of $`F_{min}`$ and $`F_{max}`$ are inverted in the pulling experiment: $`F_{min}`$ is the minimum force before a slip, and $`F_{max}`$ is the maximum force at the end of a slip. We also measure mean minimum force $`F_{min}`$ (referred to as (c) on Fig. 14) when a steady stick-slip regime is reached in the pulling experiment. Note that this stationary regime is characterized by the same compacity $`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }62.5\%`$ as in the pushing situation.

Following relation (8), this procedure should imply a change of $`ϵ`$ from $`1`$ to $`1`$, and consequently, the force at the onset of slipping on the piston should decrease from $`F^{+1}`$ to $`F^1`$. As we observed no noticeable variation of compacity between the pushing and the pulling, we expect Janssen’s parameter $`K`$ value to be unchanged. In Fig. 15 the pulling force $`F^1`$ is measured for different packing heights $`H`$, for the first slipping event and in the steady stick-slip regime. The fit of experimental results with eq. (8) gives $`p_1(40\text{s})=0.230\pm 0.004`$ for stationary stick-slip which is $`20\%`$ larger than $`p_{+1}(40\text{s})`$. It cannot be due to a slight change in average compacity $`\stackrel{\_}{\nu }`$ as from relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }K/K5\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{\_}{\nu }/\stackrel{\_}{\nu }`$, we would expect a $`4\%`$ variation in compacity, which would have been observed; let us recall that we actually measured a compacity variation between the pushing and the pulling experiment $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{\_}{\nu }/\stackrel{\_}{\nu }=0\pm 1\%`$.
As in the steady-sliding experiment, according to Janssen’s picture, this would then imply that vertical stress redirection is more efficient in the pulling situation; furthermore, this effect is enhanced in the stick-slip regime. For the first slip event in the pulling experiment, we find $`p_1(40\text{s})=0.16\pm 0.015`$ which is now lower than $`p_{+1}(40\text{s})`$. We believe this is a clear evidence of a granular structuration effects. We interpret the differences in $`p_1`$ values by saying that the packing has first been structured to resist the pushing; when we start pulling, structure is not efficient to resist the pulling, and it results in a lower Janssen’s constant (therefore lower $`p_1`$) for the first slip event; when we continue pulling, the packing gets structured to resist pulling and leans more efficiently on the walls, i.e. Janssen’s constant (and $`p_1`$) increases. Moreover, steady-state structuration is more efficient for the pulling than for the pushing, which means that both structurations may be different and could reflect the symmetry breaking due to gravity.

The results of the simulations of an elastic medium in a column presented in the precedent section for a steady-sliding also carry on to the stick-slip situation. If we impose numerically everywhere at the walls, the relations $`\sigma _{rz}=𝝁_𝐬\sigma _{rr}`$ or $`\sigma _{rz}=𝝁_𝐝\sigma _{rr}`$, it would merely correspond to a change in the name of the friction coefficient. The equilibrium equations are the same for the static and steady dynamic cases. The important common point is that friction forces are fully mobilized everywhere at the walls. Therefore, as for the steady-sliding, the data can be fitted by the elastic predictions, and the $`3\%`$ difference in Janssen’s parameter between the pulling and the pushing of an elastic medium of constant Poisson ratio is again qualitatively (though not quantitatively) in agreement with the experimental results.

In the following, as we study the steady-state regime, we will try to distinguish between wall-bead interactions (i.e. $`\mu _s`$) and the bulk properties (i.e. $`K`$) as they influence the rheological properties when velocity and relative humidity are changed.

#### III.2.2 Rheological properties

The mean maximum force $`F_{max}`$ increases strongly when the driving velocity $`V_0`$ is decreased and the relative humidity $`\chi `$ is increased (Fig. 16a, 17a, 18a). Furthermore, $`F_{max}`$ apparent divergence when $`V_0`$ decreases is enhanced when $`\chi `$ increases. The mean minimum force $`F_{min}`$ is almost independent of the driving velocity, and increases when the relative humidity is increased (Fig. 16a, 17a, 18a). For each stick-slip event, an aging time (the stick time) is measured: $`t_{stick}=(F_{max}F_{min})/(kV)`$. This time is associated to a parameter $`K\mu _s(t_{stick})`$ extracted from the fit of the maximum force $`F_{max}`$ of this stick-slip event with equation (8). In the following, the results of this analysis for duralumin and brass columns are compared and discussed.

#### Steel/duralumin

For steel beads in the duralumin column, the parameter $`K\mu _s`$ (Fig. 16b, 17b) increases roughly logarithmically with aging time, and increases strongly with relative humidity $`\chi `$. Its value increases by 50% when $`\chi `$ increases from $`3\%`$ to $`45\%`$, and doubles when $`\chi `$ increases from $`45\%`$ to $`90\%`$. The parameter $`K\mu _s`$ does not depend only globally on $`\chi `$, but its logarithmic aging rate $`Kb`$ with stick time $`t_{stick}`$ depends strongly on $`\chi `$. The parameters $`Kb`$ extracted from a logarithmic fit of $`K\mu _s(t)`$ with $`\mu _s(t)=\mu _0+b\mathrm{ln}(t/\tau _0)`$ are given in table 3 for different relative humidities.
Note that magnitude of $`Kb`$, as $`K`$ is of the order 1, is consistent with many previous reports on solid friction Berthoud99 ; Crassous99 . An important feature is that the logarithmic aging rate appears to be 4 times higher in humid atmosphere than in dry atmosphere.

The logarithmic evolution is not perfect: for aging time larger than $`3000`$s, we observe that $`K\mu _s`$ increases more sharply with time; for $`H=2.15D`$ of steel beads and $`\chi =45\%`$, $`Kb`$ varies from $`0.009`$ for times $`t_{stick}<3000`$ s to about $`0.025`$ in the last time decade (Fig. 17b). This phenomenon was observed for all relative humidities $`\chi `$. It is similar to what was reported previously by Losert et al. Gollub97  for plane shearing of glass beads.
It is tempting to link this enhanced aging behavior to the granular material slow restructuring effects since one may think of an aging of the granular structure leading to a better stress redirection at the walls.

However, at this point, it is not possible to differentiate between wall and structure properties. We tried to measure independently $`\mu _s`$ aging properties in a solid on solid experiment, but we did not obtain satisfactory statistics to conclude. Therefore, we need to compare the results obtained in the duralumin column to the one obtained in the brass column.

#### Steel/brass

For steel beads in the brass column, the parameter $`K\mu _s`$ extracted from the experimental measurements (Fig. 18b) also increases logarithmically with aging time. However, the increase with relative humidity $`\chi `$ is much less important than in the duralumin column since $`K\mu _s`$ increase is only $`50\%`$ when increasing $`\chi `$ from dry atmosphere to $`90\%`$ humidity, whereas the increase is more than $`150\%`$ in the duralumin column for the same variation of $`\chi `$. Moreover, the $`K\mu _s`$ increase with stick time seems now perfectly logarithmic over 4 decades of time variation.

As in the duralumin column, $`K\mu _s`$ increase rate with stick time $`t_{stick}`$ depends on $`\chi `$. The parameters $`Kb`$ extracted from a logarithmic fit of $`K\mu _s(t)`$ with $`\mu _s(t)=\mu _0+b\mathrm{ln}(t/\tau _0)`$ are given in table 4. Logarithmic aging rate is now 2.5 times greater in humid atmosphere than in dry atmosphere (it was 4 times higher in the duralumin column).

#### Comments

The only differences between both systems (duralumin and brass column) being the contacts at the walls, as for the steady-sliding regime, the differences observed in the rheological behavior suggest that the aging of $`K\mu _s`$ is mainly an aging of friction coefficient $`\mu _s`$ at the walls and that humidity affects principally the contacts at the walls.

Relative humidity $`\chi `$ seems to have two effects in the duralumin column: first, the aging rate is higher when $`\chi `$ is higher, second, the friction level for short times is higher when $`\chi `$ is higher.
In the brass column there seems to be an effect of $`\chi `$ only on the aging rate: the $`K\mu _s(t_{stick})`$ curves for different $`\chi `$ cross for $`t=0.1`$ ms. The logarithmic aging rate coefficient gets comparable values in both columns, but it is higher in the duralumin column ($`Kb=0.023`$) in humid atmosphere than in the brass column ($`Kb=0.014`$).

Our observations are consistent with recent aging experiments in granular media Boquet98 ; Restagno02  and solid on solid aging experiments Crassous99 , who found logarithmic aging of static friction enhanced by an increase in relative humidity $`\chi `$. These results have been interpreted by the dynamics of capillary condensation at the contacts Boquet98 ; Restagno00 , which is a thermally activated process: as time goes on, there are more and more capillary bridges at the contacts, which are responsible for an adhesion force increasing with aging time; moreover, condensation goes faster when $`\chi `$ is higher. In these models, there is no aging in dry atmosphere, as no condensation can occur; this prediction agrees with most observations Crassous99 . As in our experiment the logarithmic aging rate coefficient is not zero in dry atmosphere (even though the air flux we impose is probably not perfectly dry), we can conclude that capillary condensation is not the only source of aging. Another source of aging can be creep of contacts Berthoud99 .

We observed that aging is perfectly logarithmic in the brass column. Therefore, we are led to analyze again the aging in the duralumin column since the interpretation based on aging of internal friction we proposed for the duralumin column, should also apply to the brass column, which is in contradiction with the observed behavior.

If we suppose that $`K`$ properties depend only on the granular material properties, the acceleration of logarithmic aging in the duralumin column may be not linked to aging of bead/bead contacts nor granular slow restructurations. We may then start from the following experimental observations: in solid on solid friction experiments, static friction coefficients $`\mu _s`$ are found to depend on the applied shear exerted for a given waiting time Berthoud99 ; OvarlezGauthier . For a higher shear during a given waiting time, coefficient $`\mu _s`$ is higher, and the logarithmic aging rate is higher too Berthoud99 . In our experiments, during a “stick” event, the pushing force increases linearly with time, i.e. shear at the walls (and contact pressure) increases. As a consequence, aging occurs with a non-constant applied shear and the mean shear is more important when the aging time is higher. Consequently for high waiting time or stick time, i.e. for high mean shear at the walls, the aging of the static friction coefficient may be accelerated.
This phenomenology may be a priori different for different surfaces, which would explain why aging seems perfectly logarithmic in the brass column, and not in the duralumin column.

#### III.2.3 Analysis of $`F_{max}`$ evolution

Now, the high enhancement of the blocking resistance force $`F_{max}`$ with decreasing driving velocity can be simply understood within the Janssen framework . We start from the experimental observation that the minimum force $`F_{min}`$ after a slip does not depend on velocity (at constant relative humidity $`\chi `$): $`F_{min}=F_0`$. Therefore, the aging time $`t_{stick}`$ before a slip reads:

$$t_{stick}=(F_{max}F_0)/(kV)$$
(9)
We suppose, as well verified experimentally, that the coefficient of friction $`\mu _s`$ at the walls follows a logarithmic aging law:

$$\mu _s(t)=\mu _0+b\mathrm{ln}(t/\tau )$$
(10)
This value of $`\mu _s(t)`$ for aging time $`t_{stick}`$ can be injected in formula (8). We then obtain:

$$F_{max}V^{1/\gamma }$$
(11)
with $`\gamma =R/(2KbH)1`$.
The apparent divergence of $`F_{max}`$ with decreasing velocity, as observed experimentally, is thus more important when the height of beads and the logarithmic aging rate $`b`$ of friction at the walls (i.e. relative humidity as $`b`$ increases with $`\chi `$) are higher. The observed strong dependence of $`F_{max}`$ with $`V`$ then corresponds to an exponential amplification of friction aging at the walls. Elements of interpretation along these lines were already given in ref Ovarlez01 .

### III.3 Influence of relative humidity: an open problem

Nevertheless from the whole series of experiments we performed on this system we are led to conclude that the dependence of the phenomenology with the relative humidity $`\chi `$ remains sometimes unclear.

As an illustration of this statement, we report the following result (Fig. 19, 20). In an experiment performed in the stick-slip regime and in the ambient atmosphere, for a driving velocity $`V=50\text{nm.s}^1`$, the forces $`F_{min}`$ and $`F_{max}`$ were found to be independent of $`\chi `$, which was varying between $`52\%`$ and $`62\%`$, during the first 30 hours of the experiment. We then observed that the $`F_{min}`$ and $`F_{max}`$ variations became suddenly correlated to the $`\chi `$ variations and would stay correlated for the next 80 hours. For the first 30 hours, $`\chi `$ increased from $`52\%`$ to $`62\%`$, while $`F_{min}`$ and $`F_{max}`$ were nearly constant: $`F_{max}=11.6`$ N, $`F_{min}=8.2`$ N. Then $`\chi `$ varied from $`62\%`$ to $`68\%`$ in one hour: $`F_{min}`$ and $`F_{max}`$ started to be correlated to $`\chi `$ from this “ triggering event” and for the next 80 hours as if the system had suddenly reached some “reversible branch”.

Such a phenomenology was never obtained when humidities $`\chi =90\%`$ and $`\chi <3\%`$ were imposed. When we imposed dry atmosphere, the force would reach its stationary value in a few minutes, and we never noticed any variation in this value for 5 days; when we imposed humid atmosphere, the force would reach its stationary value in a maximum of 3 hours and we noticed no variation in this value for 5 days.

This may however incite to prudence for results obtained in ambient atmosphere, for experiments performed on the granular column as much as for solid on solid friction experiments. As an example, we see on Fig. 20 that for $`\chi =60\%`$, $`F_{max}=11.5\pm 0.2`$ N when forces and $`\chi `$ are not correlated, whereas $`F_{max}=10.3\pm 0.2`$ N when they are correlated.

Furthermore, this opens the question of the metastability of capillary condensation. If variation of $`F_{max}`$ with $`\chi `$ is interpreted as variation of $`\mu _s`$ due to thermally activated capillary condensation at the contacts Boquet98 ; Restagno00 , it seems possible that capillary condensation did not occur for hours. If we notice that $`F_{max}`$ starts to be correlated with $`\chi `$ when $`F_{max}`$ constant value is equal to $`F_{max}`$ on the $`\chi `$ dependent part of the curve (i.e. $`F_{max}=11.8`$ N and $`\chi =68\%`$), another possibility is that there were as much capillary bridges condensed at the contacts as for $`\chi =68\%`$ in the first part of the experiment, i.e. that evaporation does not always happen.

### III.4 Dieterich-Ruina analysis

A standard phenomenological model accounting for static and dynamic properties of solid friction is the so-called Dieterich-Ruina model Dieterich79 ; Ruina . In this picture, the coefficient of friction is

$$\mu =\mu _0+a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{V}{V_0})+b\mathrm{ln}\frac{V_0\theta }{D}$$
(12)
where $`\theta `$ obeys othermodels

$$\frac{\text{d}\theta }{\text{d}t}=1\frac{\theta V}{D}$$
(13)
$`\mu _0`$, $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`D`$ are constants dependent of the materials in contact. Parameter $`D`$ is usually interpreted as a characteristic length for renewal of contacts and is of order of the creep length before sliding Heslot94 . In a stationary steady-sliding regime $`\theta =D/V`$ is interpreted as a characteristic time for renewal of contacts.

This model accounts for the logarithmic aging of static friction, and the logarithmic velocity strengthening or weakening in the steady-sliding regime with:

$`\text{d}\mu _s/\text{d}\mathrm{ln}(t)`$ $`=b`$ (14)
$`\text{d}\mu _d/\text{d}\mathrm{ln}(V)`$ $`=ab`$ (15)
It also accounts for a third usual phenomenon observed in the transitory regime when the velocity is changed suddenly. In this case there is an abrupt change in friction coefficient followed by exponential relaxation to a new stationary value. If we change velocity $`V_1`$ to velocity $`V_2`$, the instantaneous change in friction coefficient from stationary value $`\mu _d(V_1)=\mu _0+(ab)\mathrm{ln}(V_1/V_0)`$ is $`+a\mathrm{ln}(V_2/V_1)`$; friction change from this value to new stationary value $`\mu _d(V_2)`$ is then $`b\mathrm{ln}(V_2/V_1)`$ during typical time $`\tau =D/V_2`$, i.e. we get $`\mu _d(V_2)=\mu _0+(ab)\mathrm{ln}(V_2/V_0)`$.

Now we test the Dieterich-Ruina model with the steel/duralumin and steel/brass friction coefficient extracted from our data. As we observed logarithmic aging and rough logarithmic velocity strengthening, we get parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$. We are therefore able to test this model predictions with the observation of response to an abrupt variation of velocity.

Experimentally, we never observed any transitory state: the force in the steady sliding regime was always changed from stationary value $`\overline{F}(V_1)`$ to stationary value $`\overline{F}(V_2)`$ when changing velocity from $`V_1`$ to $`V_2`$. From the measured value of $`Kb=0.010`$ for steel/duralumin friction and $`Kb=0.011`$ for steel/brass in ambient atmosphere, we would however expect the force at the beginning of the transitory regime to be $`0.5`$N larger (steel beads height $`H=2.15D`$) than the stationary force at the new velocity. As the natural fluctuations of force are around $`0.1`$N, we would therefore expect to observe this transitory regime in $`\overline{F}`$ due to change in friction at the walls. Now we give an interpretation for why, within the Dietrich-Ruina picture, this transitory regime was not observed, which yields an upper bound for the material contact renewal length $`D_0`$.

When velocity is changed from $`10\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ to $`100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ for $`H=2.15D`$ (380 g) of steel beads in a duralumin cylinder, the change in $`\overline{F}`$ stationary value is of 1 N. But, due to the finite stiffness of our set-up, this change cannot be instantaneous: an increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ of force at constant velocity takes minimal time $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }F/(kV)`$. So an increase of 1 N of force at $`100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ takes time $`t=0.25`$s. This time must be compared to time length $`\tau `$ of transitory regime: $`\tau =D_0/V`$. Therefore, in the framework of the Dieterich-Ruina model, we need $`\tau `$ to be less than the time of force variation, which means $`D_0<25\mu `$m .

Let us now consider a sudden decrease in velocity from $`100\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ to $`1\mu \text{m.s}^1`$. Now the decrease of force is governed by inertial time: $`t_{in}=\pi \sqrt{m/k}`$ which can be evaluated around $`t_{in}=200`$ ms. This leads to $`D_0<400`$ nm (so that $`\tau <t_{in}`$) consistently with the Dieterich-Ruina model if no transitory state is observed.

We have no precise measure for $`D_0`$ but this upper limit on the value is coherent with the usual interpretation in terms of length for contact renewal, as the duralumin column mean roughness is 400 nm. Thus, we can neither validate nor rule out the Dieterich-Ruina model for our system.

### III.5 Transition mechanism

For experiments performed at given height of beads and relative humidity $`\chi `$, we observe that the transition from stick-slip to steady-sliding occurs for a finite stick-slip amplitude (Fig. 21). This suggests a subcritical transition but such a transition would be hysteretic. In order to verify this feature, we make the following experiment: we drive the system at constant velocity in the steady-sliding regime near the transition until it reaches a stationary state, we then decrease continuously the velocity, without ever stopping the movement, to a velocity for which stick-slip used to occur. Note that the results reported in the previous sections and on Fig. 21 were obtained for independent experiments on systems driven at a unique velocity. We observe that if we impose $`V=700\text{nm.s}^1`$ directly, we obtain a stick-slip motion, whereas when we decrease velocity from $`1.4\mu \text{m.s}^1`$ (in the steady-sliding regime) to $`V=700\text{nm.s}^1`$ the motion is steady-sliding. This proves the hysteretic character of the transition, which was actually hard to observe as the system seems very sensitive to noise.

This transition is similar to the one observed by Heslot et al. Heslot94  in solid on solid experiments; it correspond to what they call the ”inertial regime”. It is a characteristic of systems for which the dynamical coefficient of friction increases with velocity. This transition scenario was explained by Brockley et al. Brockley . However they find that the force $`\overline{F}`$ in the steady-sliding regime at the transition is of order of $`F_{min}`$. We actually find (see Fig. 21) that $`\overline{F}`$ is less than $`F_{min}`$ for steel beads in the duralumin cylinder, a feature we do not understand, whereas $`\overline{F}F_{min}`$ for in the brass cylinder.

Again, the transition we observed is consistent with a picture of solid friction sliding instability at the wall. This is also consistent with the model we have developed in the previous section.

## IV Polydisperse glass beads

After the study of the simplest case, with monodisperse low friction beads, we now want to study the effect of disorder (friction, polydispersity) on rheology. Therefore, we choose to study a miscellany of glass beads using a three diameters mixture (1.5 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm) with equal volume of each kind in an abraded PMMA cylinder. In the following, we present the features obtained in the stick-slip regime for this system.

### IV.1 Stick-slip characterization

For low velocities ($`V<100\text{nm.s}^1`$), a stick-slip motion is obtained with the same properties as observed with monodisperse steel beads in a duralumin or brass cylinder. It is a regular stick-slip motion characterized by a maximum force before slipping that increases strongly when velocity is decreased, and a minimum force after slipping which does not depend on velocity (Fig. 22a). A coefficient $`K\mu _s(t_{stick})`$ can be extracted from $`F_{max}`$ with equation (8) for low velocities ($`V<100\text{nm.s}^1`$). Again, it shows a logarithmic aging of friction at the walls (Fig. 22b). However, the behavior changes for higher velocities just before the transition to steady-sliding. The stick-slip motion is then less and less regular as the velocity is increased. Furthermore we observe structures in the force signal. Figure 23 evidences cycles of force increase during which the maximum and minimum forces increase for several stick-slip events, as the force amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{stick}`$ during a stick is higher than the force amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{slip}`$ during a slip. Then, at the end of a cycle, there is a big slip event and a new cycle starts. This phenomenon is similar to the one observed by Albert et al. Albert99  for the pushing of a stick in a granular material, and to the one observed for aluminium beads by Kolb et al. LaKolb99  in the same display as ours but in 2D . It was however much more important in that last study in 2D: the force $`F_{max}`$ would then increase from $`2N`$ after a big slip event to $`20N`$ before the next big slip event.

We analyse this phenomenon by studying the distribution of force amplitudes defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{stick}=F_{max}(i)F_{min}(i)`$ for the $`i^{th}`$ stick event, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{slip}=F_{max}(i)F_{min}(i+1)`$ for the following slip event (Fig. 24). We observe the evolution of these distributions with increasing velocity. $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{stick}`$ distribution remains centered around a mean value; however, this distribution gets larger when the velocity is increased. For lower velocities ($`150\text{nm.s}^1`$ on Fig. 24a), stick-slip is regular, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{slip}`$ distribution is regular around same mean value as $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{stick}`$ (with nevertheless a larger distribution). When velocity is increased, the distribution is still predominant around same mean value as $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{stick}`$ but many smaller values start to merge in the distribution ($`V=750\text{nm.s}^1`$ on Fig. 24b); these small values become as frequent as the larger ones for higher velocities ($`V=1500\text{nm.s}^1`$ on Fig. 24c). The distribution also enlarges to the higher values which corresponds to occurrence of the big slip events. Note that in these experiments, the transition to steady-sliding regime occurs for velocity a velocity around $`V=2000\text{nm.s}^1`$.

### IV.2 Analysis

Several explanations can be proposed to account for this complex dynamics exhibiting a large distribution of energy release. In our point of view, the principal ingredient for an explanation seems to be the progressive structuration of the packing between two big slip events. In the Janssen model picture, the progressive increase of $`F_{max}`$ in a cycle corresponds to progressive increase of Janssen’s constant $`K`$. The $`K`$ value increases from an initial value $`K_0`$ at the beginning of a cycle up to a maximum value $`K_{max}`$ at the end of the cycle, and is reinitialised by a big slip event to value $`K_0`$. Let us recall that $`K`$ was found to increase with density in another report Ovarlez03 . A consequence of this dependence was shown in section III.1.1. Therefore, a way to obtain the phenomenology is to start from a loose packing at the beginning of a cycle; if each small slip event densifies the packing (as can be expected from compaction under vibration), it leads to a small increase in $`K`$, so that the minimum force $`F_{min}`$ at the end of the slip is higher than the force $`F_{min}`$ at the end of the preceding slip; the maximum force $`F_{max}`$ at the end of the stick is also higher than the force $`F_{max}`$ at the end of the preceding stick. Sometimes, big events occur; they probably correspond to convective motion at the walls, as observed by Kolb et al. in 2D LaKolb99 , which loosens the packing, which then gets the initial density of the cycle.

For the interpretation we give, the stick events last a constant time as the aging time of contacts at the walls is still controlled by the velocity. This explains why the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{stick}`$ is still centered on mean value contrary to $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{slip}`$.

But still a criterion for big slip events has yet to be found; it may be the level of stresses, or a dilatance effect at high density causing shear band and convection rolls. The regularity of stick-slip motion at low velocities can be understood if the criterion for big slip events is at an upper stress level. A slow driving velocity leads to long aging of contacts at the walls so that the maximum force $`F_{max}`$ is always greater than the threshold to obtain a big slip. All slip events are then big slip events in this case.

This transition from a simple steady stick-slip to a complex dynamical regime with a large distribution of elastic energy release is an interesting issue and we plan to pursue further the investigation trying to clarify in particular the role of disorder and polydispersity in the phenomenology.

## V Conclusion

We presented an experimental report on the dynamical behavior of a granular column pushed vertically. We first investigated the case of a monodisperse assembly of steel beads and we observed at low driving velocities ($`1<V<100\mu m/s`$) a steady behavior such that the pushing forces increase roughly logarithmically with velocity. On the other hand, at very low driving velocity ($`V<1\mu m/s`$), we evidenced a discontinuous and hysteretic transition to a stick-slip regime characterized by a strong divergence of the maximal blockage force when the velocity goes to zero. All this phenomenology is strongly influenced by surrounding humidity: generally, higher humidity level increases strongly the resistance to pushing. Finite elements numerical simulations were used to confront experimental results to a modelling of the granular packing as an isotropic elastic medium. Then, we showed that a simple Janssen’s model is a fair base for analysis as it provides the correct physical interpretation for the pushing resistance. This Janssen’s model was used to extract an important mechanical parameter combining the effects of stress redirection and wall friction but there is an inherent difficulty to isolate clearly the various contributions either coming from bulk reorganization or from the surface friction properties.

Using different column materials and measuring directly the friction of a grain with the wall, we accumulated several evidences leading us to conclude that the force dependence with driving velocity and humidity is strongly related to the bead-wall friction properties: (i) in the steady limit grain/wall tribology measurements show a friction force increasing with humidity and velocity, (ii) in the stick-slip regime, the blockage enhancement can be related to humidity induced aging of the bead-wall friction, (iii) the hysteretic transition mechanism from stick-slip to steady-sliding is similar to the one observed in solid-on-solid experiments Brockley ; Heslot94 .

In spite of a dominant surface effect, we could also identify contributions of bulk structurations. For example, we related the transitory part of the response to pushing to a dependance of the coefficient of redirection between horizontal and vertical stress with packing fraction. Also a clear difference of the mechanical parameters extracted from pushing and pulling experiments shows a contribution from restructuration of about 20%.

A second system, made of polydisperse assemblies of glass beads, was investigated. We emphasize the onset of a new complex dynamical behavior, i.e. the large distribution of blockage forces evidenced in the stick-slip regime close to the transition.

## VI Acknowledgments

We acknowledge collaboration with C. Fond, C. Gauthier and E. Kolb. We thank J. Lanuza and P. Lepert for technical support. We are grateful to Professor T. Baumberger, Professor R.P. Behringer, and Professor C. Caroli for many interesting discussions.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Path integral for minisuperspaces and its relation

with non equivalent canonical quantizations

Claudio Simeone111Electronic mail: simeone@iafe.uba.ar

Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales

Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria, Pabellón I

1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

and

Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio,

C. C. 67, Sucursal 28 - 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina

ABSTRACT

The relation between a recently proposed path integral for minisuperspaces and different canonical quantizations is established. The step of the procedure where a choice between non equivalent theories is made is identified. Coordinates avoiding such a choice are found for a class of homogeneous cosmologies.

PACS numbers: 04.60.Kz 04.60.Gw 98.80.Hw

A central problem of quantum cosmology is the absence of a true time in the formalism for the gravitational field, which, in turn, includes a non physical time parameter $`\tau `$ . A possible solution for cosmological models can be the identification of a physical time in terms of a subset of the canonical variables describing the system under consideration . Within this framework, in a recent book  we proposed a way to identify a time and obtain a consistent path integral quantization by establishing a correspondence between the action functional $`S[q^i,p_i,N]`$ of homogeneous cosmologies and the action $`𝒮[Q^i,P_i,N]`$ of an ordinary gauge system . Canonical gauges imposed on the gauge system define a global time for a given minisuperspace, thus yielding a quantization with a clear distinction between time and true degrees os freedom.

A cosmological model admits our treatment if its Hamiltonian constraint $``$ allows for the existence of coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{q}^i(q^i,p_i)`$ such that one of them is a global time, that is, $`\{\stackrel{~}{q}^0,\}>0`$ , and such that the Hamilton–Jacobi equation associated with $``$ (or with the scaled constraint $`H`$) is solvable. If these conditions are fulfilled, two succesive canonical transformations $`(\stackrel{~}{q}^i,\stackrel{~}{p}_i)(\overline{Q}^i,\overline{P}_i)(Q^i,P_i)=(Q^\mu ,Q^0,P_\mu ,P_0)`$ are performed, which match the Hamiltonian constraint $``$ with the new momentum $`P_0`$; then the variables $`(Q^i,P_i)`$ describe an ordinary gauge system, and a canonical gauge like $`\chi Q^0T(\tau )=0`$, which does not generate Gribov copies , defines a time in terms of the variables $`(\stackrel{~}{q}^i,\stackrel{~}{p}_i)`$ of the model. After gauge fixation and on the constraint surface $`=P_0=0`$ the propagator takes the form

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_2^i|\stackrel{~}{q}_1^i=DQ^\mu DP_\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(i_{\tau _1}^{\tau _2}\left[P_\mu dQ^\mu h(Q^\mu ,P_\mu ,\tau )d\tau \right]\right),$$
(1)
where $`h`$ is the (true) Hamiltonian for the reduced system described by the observables $`(Q^\mu (\stackrel{~}{q}^i,\stackrel{~}{p}_i,\tau ),P_\mu (\stackrel{~}{q}^i,\stackrel{~}{p}_i,\tau ))`$.

However, in the case of certain cosmological models there are some subtleties which have not been analysed in detail in our previous works, but which deserve a thorough discussion, as they involve a definite choice between non equivalent quantizations associated to classically equivalent formulations; this choice is not of the usual form associated to different operator orderings, i.e. one cannot pass from one formulation to another one by changing the operator ordering. In some of our works the problem was avoided, but this was achieved at the price of obtaining a propagator which could not be explicitly solved .

The purpose of the present letter is thus to clarify these points and improve the proposed procedure. First, we shall establish which is the canonical quantization which corresponds to our path integral formulation, and at which stage of our procedure we make a definite choice. Within this context, we shall analyse the positive and negative aspects of different ways of performing our deparametrization and quantization program. Finally, we shall propose a coordinate change making unnecesary the choice between two non equivalent quantum theories in the case of a class of minisuperspaces including, among others, some string cosmological models which have recently received attention in the literature , as well as some anisotropic universes. Also, we shall show that our procedure is not restricted to models which admit an intrinsic time.

The discussion can be illustrated by the first model considered in Ref. , which is a flat Friedmann–Robertson–Walker universe with a massless scalar field $`\varphi `$ and positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, its scaled Hamiltonian constraint given by $`H=p_\mathrm{\Omega }^2+p_\varphi ^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{6\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$, ($`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ln}a`$, $`a`$ the scale factor). However, we shall begin by considering a generic constraint of the form

$$H=\stackrel{~}{p}_1^2+\stackrel{~}{p}_2^2+Ae^{(a\stackrel{~}{q}^1+b\stackrel{~}{q}^2)}=0$$
(2)
with $`ab`$. This kind of constraint is common in dilatonic models (that is, cosmologies coming from the low energy limit of bosonic string theory), and also includes isotropic and anisotropic relativistic models, like the Kantowski–Sachs universe, or even the Taub universe after a suitable canonical transformation ; the latter is an example in which $`\stackrel{~}{q}^0=\stackrel{~}{q}^0(q^i,p_i)`$, so that the time is extrinsic . It is easy to show that a coordinate change exists such that this constraint can be put in the form

$$H=p_x^2+p_y^2+\zeta e^{2x}=0,$$
(3)
with $`sgn(\zeta )=sgn(A/(a^2b^2))`$; clearly, for $`\zeta >0`$ we have a system analogous to the first studied in Ref. . In the case $`\zeta <0`$ the momentum $`p_y`$ does not vanish on the constraint surface; hence $`\{p_y,H\}0`$ and the coordinate $`y`$ is a global time . For $`\zeta >0`$, instead, we have $`\{p_x,H\}0`$ and a global time is the coordinate $`x`$.

The case involving the aforementioned subtlety corresponds to $`\zeta >0`$. The straightforward application of our deparametrization and path integral quantization procedure to the system described by the Hamiltonian (3) with $`\zeta >0`$ yields, after imposing a canonical gauge condition, a global time $`t=xsgn(p_x)\eta x`$ and the reduced phase space path integral

$$y_2,x_2|y_1,x_1=DQDP\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{T_1}^{T_2}\left[PdQ+\eta \sqrt{P^2+\zeta e^{2T}}dT\right]\right),$$
(4)
where the endpoints are $`T_1=x_1`$ and $`T_2=x_2`$, and the paths go from $`Q_1=y_1`$ to $`Q_2=y_2`$.

To establish which is the canonical quantization corresponding to this path integral we can note the following: from the reduced action yielding after gauge fixation we can read the time-depending true Hamiltonian $`h=\eta \sqrt{p_y^2+\zeta e^{2x}}.`$ Because in this case $`x=\eta t`$, then $`h=\stackrel{~}{p}_0=p_x`$ and we have

$$p_x+\eta \sqrt{p_y^2+\zeta e^{2x}}=0,$$

thus obtaining two constraints, namely $`K^+=0`$ and $`K^{}=0`$, each one linear in the momentum $`p_x`$. These two constraints together are classically equivalent to the original Hamiltonian constraint $`H=0`$, which is quadratic in all the momenta; that is, classical dynamics take place in one of two sheets in which the constraint surface splits. But at the quantum level this equivalence does no more hold: a function in the kernel of the operator $`\widehat{K}^+`$ or $`\widehat{K}^{}`$ is not annihilated by the operator $`\widehat{H}`$, but by $`\widehat{H}`$ plus terms corresponding to a commutator between $`\widehat{p}_x`$ and the square-root true Hamiltonian resulting from its time-depending potential (see below). It must be emphasized that these terms cannot be eliminated by any operator ordering; thus the choice of limiting procedure in the skeletonization of the path integral, which determines a particular ordering, is not relevant for our analysis. Imposing the operator form of the original Hamiltonian constraint on a wave function yields the usual Wheeler–DeWitt equation which is of second order in $`/x`$. Instead, splitting the constraint into two disjoint sheets yields a canonical quantization consisting in two equations of first order in $`/x`$:

$$i\frac{}{x}\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm \left(\frac{^2}{y^2}+\zeta e^{2x}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$

In this case we have a pair of Hilbert spaces, each one with its corresponding Schrödinger equation. We can say that the Schrödinger quantization preserves the topology of the constraint surface, that is, the splitting of the classical solutions into two disjoint subsets has its quantum version in the splitting of the theory into two Hilbert spaces.

Therefore, our path integral quantization is not in correspondence with the solutions of a Wheeler–DeWitt equation, but with those of a pair of Schrödinger equations, one for each sheet of the constraint surface (we want to insist on the point that operator ordering plays a secondary role within this context). Though the Wheeler–DeWitt equation is the most common choice for the canonical quantization of minisuperspaces, a time-depending potential in the Hamiltonian constraint makes difficult the interpretation of the resulting wave function in tems of a conserved positive-definite inner product (this cannot be avoided by defining the time as $`\pm y`$, because when $`\zeta >0`$ we do not have $`\{y,H\}0`$ everywhere; such a wrong choice would lead to a reduced Hamiltonian which is not self-adjoint). The Schrödinger quantization, instead, allows to define a conserved inner product for each subset of solutions associated to each sheet of the constraint; this inner product is defined by fixing the time in the integration:

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_2)=𝑑q\delta (tt_0)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a determinant making the integral independent of the time choice (if one of the coordinates $`q`$ explicitly appearing in the wave function is itself the time, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$). Hence our path integral formulation is associated to the canonical quantization which allows for a clear probability interpretation, and which, in a sense, reproduces the classical geometry of the constraint surface. Our procedure could be understood as introducing the appropriate quantum corrections to the Hamiltonian constraint $`H`$ , which are given by the commutator mentioned above, and whose general form is $`[\sqrt{(\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}_r})^2+V(\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}^i})},\widehat{\stackrel{~}{p}}_0]`$ (where $`r0`$, and $`V`$ stands for the potential in the scaled Hamiltonian constraint $`H`$).

The choice between both formalisms is made when we solve the Hamilton–Jacobi equation $`H(\stackrel{~}{q}^i,W/\stackrel{~}{q}^i)=E`$: because of the quadratic form of the constraint, this is a first order non linear equation, but to explicitly obtain its solution $`W`$ one integrates two equations which are linear in the derivative respect to the coordinate identified as $`\pm `$ the time,

$$\frac{W}{\stackrel{~}{q}^0}=\pm \left(\underset{r}{}\left(\frac{W}{\stackrel{~}{q}^r}\right)^2+V(\stackrel{~}{q}^i)E\right)^{1/2}.$$

At the level of the path integral this is reflected in the fact that the reduced Hamiltonian $`h`$ in (1) is equal to $`f/\tau `$, where $`f`$ is chosen to ensure that the path integral in the new variables effectively corresponds to the transition amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{q}_2^i|\stackrel{~}{q}_1^i`$. This is achieved if the end point terms

$$B=\left[\overline{Q}^i\overline{P}_iW(\stackrel{~}{q}^i,\overline{P}_i)+Q^\mu P_\mu f(\overline{Q}^\mu ,P_\mu ,\tau )\right]_{\tau _1}^{\tau _2}$$

associated to the two succesive canonical transformations vanish on the constraint surface $`H=0`$ and in a gauge associated to a global time $`t(\stackrel{~}{q}^i)`$; this yields two disjoint theories, one for each reduced Hamiltonian determined by each sign of $`W`$ .

In some of our works  we proposed a change to null coordinates leading to the following form of the constraint:

$$p_xp_y+C=0.$$
(5)
The obtention of a constant ‘potential’ then seems to solve the problem associated to the existence of non equivalent forms of writing the constraint. The application of our method starting from this constraint leads to an action including a true Hamiltonian which is time-independent. However, the resulting propagator for the physical degree of freedom

$$y_2,x_2|y_1,x_1=DQDP\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{T_1}^{T_2}\left[PdQ\frac{\eta }{P}dT\right]\right)$$
(6)
(where the paths go from $`Q_1=y_1`$ to $`Q_2=y_2`$ and the endpoints are $`T_1=x_1,T_2=x_2`$) has the unsatisfactory feature that the functional integration over $`P`$ cannot be effectively performed, even to find its infinitesimal form, because of the dependence $`P^1`$ of the reduced Hamiltonian.

For the class of models studied here we can propose a coordinate choice with the following desirable properties: 1) The necessity of deciding between inequivalent quantum theories yielding from different forms of writing the classical constraint is avoided. 2) The functional integration can be explicitly performed. Consider the constraint (2) and define

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a\stackrel{~}{q}^1+b\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b\stackrel{~}{q}^1+a\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{2}}\right)`$
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a\stackrel{~}{q}^1+b\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{2}}\right)\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b\stackrel{~}{q}^1+a\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{2}}\right),`$ (7)
with $`\alpha =\sqrt{|A|}`$. Because $`ab`$ and $`uv`$ these coordinates allow to write the constraint in the equivalent (scaled) form

$$H=p_u^2+p_v^2+\eta m^2=0,$$
(8)
with $`\eta =sgn(A)`$ and $`m^2=4/|a^2b^2|`$. It is clear that commutators cannot appear now, or, in other words, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation is equivalent to two Schrödinger equations. The time will be $`u`$ or $`v`$ depending on $`\eta `$; formally, this yields from a canonical gauge of the form $`\chi \sqrt{P^2+m^2}Q^0T(\tau )=0`$. The application of our path integral procedure to this system is straightforward; on the constraint surface and after gauge fixation we obtain:

$$u_2,v_2|u_1,v_1=DQDP\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{T_1}^{T_2}\left[PdQ+\eta \sqrt{P^2+m^2}dT\right]\right),$$
(9)
where the endpoints are $`T_1=u_1(v_1)`$ and $`T_2=u_2(v_2)`$ and the paths go from $`Q_1=v_1(u_1)`$ to $`Q_2=v_2(u_2)`$ for $`\eta =1(1)`$. By skeletonizing the paths we obtain $`N1`$ $`\delta `$-functionals of the form $`\delta (P_mP_{m1}),`$ and hence the functional integration reduces to an ordinary one:

$$u_2,v_2|u_1,v_1=𝑑P\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left[P(Q_2Q_1)+\eta \sqrt{P^2+m^2}(T_2T_1)\right]\right).$$
(10)
The double sign given by $`\eta `$ corresponds to both possible sheets of the constraint surface where the evolution can take place.

Let us illustrate this coordinate choice with some simple dilatonic cosmologies (see  and references therein); consider the scaled constraint

$$H=p_\mathrm{\Omega }^2+p_\varphi ^2+2ce^{6\mathrm{\Omega }+\varphi }=0$$

which corresponds to a flat model with dilaton field $`\varphi `$. In the case $`c<0`$ this constraint admits a change to the coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ yielding an expression like (3), with $`t=\pm y`$, but for $`c>0`$ we have $`t=\pm x`$ and the problem of the time-depending potential appears. The change to $`(u,v)`$, instead, solves this: for $`c<0`$ we have $`t=\pm v`$, while for $`c>0`$ we obtain $`t=\pm u`$. Note that in the case $`c<0`$ (for which the dilaton $`\varphi `$ is itself a globally good time as $`p_\varphi 0`$), we obtain $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$ on boths sheets of the constraint determined by the sign of $`p_v`$; in the case $`c>0`$ (which admits $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a global time), instead, we have that $`t`$ goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`0`$ on the sheet $`p_u>0`$, and from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ on the sheet $`p_u<0`$, with $`t0`$ corresponding to the singularity $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$. If we add a term representing the inclusion of a non vanishing antisymmetric field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ coming from the $`NS`$-$`NS`$ sector of effective string theory, we have the constraint

$$H=p_\mathrm{\Omega }^2+p_\varphi ^2+2ce^{6\mathrm{\Omega }+\varphi }+\lambda ^2e^{2\varphi }=0$$

which in principle does not admit the proposed coordinate change. Moreover, in the case $`c<0`$ the model does not admit an intrinsic time. However, we should recall that, because these models come from the low energy string theory, which makes sense in the limit $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$, then the $`e^\varphi V(\varphi )`$ factor in the first term of the potential verifies $`V(\varphi )=V^{}(\varphi )1`$ (this is clearly not the case with the term $`e^{2\varphi }`$), and we can replace $`ce^\varphi \overline{c}`$. As a previous step we can then perform the canonical transformation introduced for the Taub universe in Refs.  to obtain a constraint with only one term in the potential: for both signs of $`\overline{c}`$ we can define the generator $`f_1=\pm |\lambda |e^\varphi \mathrm{sinh}s`$ of a canonical transformation leading to

$$H=p_\mathrm{\Omega }^2+p_s^2+2\overline{c}e^{6\mathrm{\Omega }}=0$$

and we can apply our procedure starting from this constraint. As before, for $`\overline{c}<0`$ we obtain $`t=\pm v`$, while for $`\overline{c}>0`$ we obtain $`t=\pm u`$. Note that now there is an important new feature: because both $`u`$ and $`v`$ depend on the ‘intermediate’ coordinate $`s`$ which involves in its definition the original momenta, the time is extrinsic, that is, $`t=t(q^i,p_i)`$ (in the case $`\overline{c}<0`$ an intrinsic time does not exist). However, in the case of interest for us, which is $`\overline{c}>0`$, we have the same behaviour of $`t`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that we had in the absence of the antisymmetric field; $`t`$ goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`0`$ on the sheet $`p_u>0`$ of the constraint surface and from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ on the other sheet, while $`t0`$ for the singularity $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$.

Though the problem of time in quantum cosmology is far from having been solved, we believe that at the level of the minisuperspace approximation much can be done towards a consistent formulation, both within the path integral formalism and in the usual canonical formalism. Here, within the context of the problem of non equivalent quantizations yieldind from the same classical theory, we have discussed essentially three points: the correspondence between our path integral approach and a Schrödinger equation, the step of our deparametrization procedure where the choice takes place, and finally the possibility of avoiding the necessity of deciding between non equivalent quantizations by means of a suitable coordinate choice. Of course, the latter works for a limited class of homogeneous models, but, as we could see, it includes both string and relativistic, isotropic and some anisotropic, cosmologies; also, we have seen that we can even deal with models which do not admit an intrinsic time.

The possibility of working with an extrinsic time suggests an alternative formulation in the line of Ref. . There, we avoided the intermediate coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{q}^i`$ by a straightforward procedure which led to a quantization in which the states were not characterized by the coordinates, but by the momenta; thus we obtained a path integral quantization with a good global phase time for the closed ($`k=1`$) de Sitter universe. Working with an extrinsic time allowed to avoid the splitting of the formulation into two disjoint theories, even when an intrinsic time existed (see the case of the open ($`k=1`$) de Sitter universe in the same paper); an attemp to generalize this analysis could be an interesting line of work to be followed.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by CONICET and UBA (Argentina).

References

1. J. J. Halliwell, in Introductory Lectures on Quantum Cosmology, Proceedings of the Jerusalem Winter School on Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes, edited by T. Piran, World Scientific, Singapore (1990).

2. A. O. Barvinsky, Phys. Rep. 230, 237 (1993).

3. J. J. Halliwell, gr-qc/0208018.

4. P. Hájícek, Phys. Rev. D34, 1040 (1986).

5. S. C. Beluardi and R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. D52, 1963 (1995).

6. C. Simeone, J. Math. Phys. 40, 4527 (1999).

7. G. Catren and R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. D63, 023502 (2001).

8. C. Simeone, Deparametrization and Path Integral Quantization of Cosmological Models, World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics 69, World Scientific, Singapore (2002).

9. M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. D. Vergara, Nucl. Phys. B387, 391 (1992).

10. M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princeton University Press, New Jersey (1992).

11. H. De Cicco and C. Simeone, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 5105 (1999).

12. C. Simeone, J. Math. Phys. 39, 3131 (1998).

13. G. Giribet and C. Simeone, Mod. Phys. Lett. A16, 19 (2001).

14. G. Giribet and C. Simeone, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17, 2885 (2002).

15. M. Cavaglià and C. Ungarelli, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, 1401 (1999).

16. M. Gasperini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13, 4779 (1998).

17. M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, hep-th/0207130.

18. J. W. York, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1082 (1972).

19. K. V. Kuchař, J. D. Romano and M. Varadajan, Phys. Rev. D55, 795 (1997).

20. S. Carlip, Class. Quant. Grav. 11, 31 (1994).

21. G. Giribet and C. Simeone, Phys. Lett. A287, 344 (2001).