Abstract
We study the ternary Ohta–Kawasaki free energy that has been used to model triblock copolymer systems. Its one-dimensional global minimizers are conjectured to have cyclic patterns. However, some physical experiments and computer simulations found triblock copolymers forming noncyclic lamellar patterns. In this work, by comparing the free energies of the cyclic pattern and some noncyclic candidates, we show that the conjecture does not hold for some choices of parameters. Our results suggest that even in one dimension, the global minimizers may take on very different patterns in different parameter regimes. To unify the existing choices of the long-range coefficient matrix, we present a reformulation of the long-range term using a generalized charge interpretation and thereby propose conditions on the matrix in order for the global minimizers to reproduce physically relevant nanostructures of block copolymers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the supplementary material.
References
Alama, S., et al.: Periodic minimizers of a ternary non-local isoperimetric problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.08971. To appear in Indiana U. Math, Jour (2019)
Alama, S., et al.: Droplet phase in a nonlocal isoperimetric problem under confinement. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 19(1), 175 (2020)
Alberti, G., Choksi, R., Otto, F.: Uniform energy distribution for an isoperimetric problem with long-range interactions. J. Am. Math. Soc. 22(2), 569–605 (2009)
Bailey, T.S., et al.: A noncubic triply periodic network morphology in poly (isoprene-b-styrene-b-ethylene oxide) triblock copolymers. Macromolecules 35(18), 7007–7017 (2002)
Bailey, T.S., Pham, H.D., Bates, F.S.: Morphological behavior bridging the symmetric AB and ABC states in the poly (styrene-b-isoprene-b-ethylene oxide) triblock copolymer system. Macromolecules 34(20), 6994–7008 (2001)
Bates, F.S., Fredrickson, GH.: Block copolymers-designer soft materials. Phys. Today 52 (2000)
Bates, F.S., Fredrickson, G.H.: Block copolymer thermodynamics: theory and experiment. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 41(1), 525–557 (1990)
Birdi, K.S.: Introduction to surface and colloid chemistry, in Handbook of Surface and Colloid Chemistry (4th ed.). CRC Press (2015): 1–144
Burchard, A., Choksi, R., Topaloglu, I.: Nonlocal shape optimization via interactions of attractive and repulsive potentials. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.07282 (2015)
Cahn, J.W., Hilliard, J.E.: Free energy of a nonuniform system. I. Interfacial free energy. J. Chem. Phys. 28(2), 258–267 (1958)
Carazzato, D., Fusco, N., Pratelli, A.: Minimality of balls in the small volume regime for a general Gamow-type functional. Adv. Calc. Var. (2021)
Chan, H., Nejad, M.J., Wei, J.: Lamellar phase solutions for diblock copolymers with nonlocal diffusions. Phys. D 388, 22–32 (2019)
Chang, AB., Bates, FS.: The ABCs of block polymers. pp 2765–2768 (2020)
Choksi, R., Peletier, M.A.: Small volume fraction limit of the diblock copolymer problem: I. Sharp-interface functional. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 42(3), 1334–1370 (2010)
Choksi, R., Ren, X.: On the derivation of a density functional theory for microphase separation of diblock copolymers. J. Stat. Phys. 113(1), 151–176 (2003)
Choksi, R., Ren, X.: Diblock copolymer/homopolymer blends: derivation of a density functional theory. Phys. D 203(1–2), 100–119 (2005)
Choksi, R., Muratov, C.B., Topaloglu, I.: An old problem resurfaces nonlocally: Gamow’s liquid drops inspire today’s research and applications. Notices of the AMS 64(11), 1275–1283 (2017)
Cicalese, M., et al.: Ground states of a two phase model with cross and self attractive interactions. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 48(5), 3412–3443 (2016)
Daneri, S., Kerschbaum, A., Runa, E.: One-dimensionality of the minimizers for a diffuse interface generalized antiferromagnetic model in general dimension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06419 (2019)
Daneri, S., Runa, E.: Exact periodic stripes for a local/nonlocal minimization problem with volume constraint. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08135 (2021)
Daneri, S., Runa, E.: Exact periodic stripes for minimizers of a local/nonlocal interaction functional in general dimension. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 231(1), 519–589 (2019)
Daneri, S., Runa, E.: Pattern formation for a local/nonlocal interaction functional arising in colloidal systems. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 52(3), 2531–2560 (2020)
Daneri, S., Runa, E.: One-dimensionality of the minimizers in the large volume limit for a diffuse interface attractive/repulsive model in general dimension. Calc. Var. Partial. Differ. Equ. 61(1), 1–31 (2022)
Du, Q.: Nonlocal Modeling, Analysis, and Computation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (2019)
Du, Q., Gunzburger, M., Lehoucq, R., Zhou, K.: Analysis and approximation of nonlocal diffusion problems with volume constraints. SIAM Rev. 54, 667–696 (2012)
Feng, H., et al.: Block copolymers: synthesis, self-assembly, and applications. Polymers 9(10), 494 (2017)
Frank, R.L.: Non-spherical equilibrium shapes in the liquid drop model. J. Math. Phys. 60(7), 071506 (2019)
Gamow, G.: Mass defect curve and nuclear constitution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 126(803), 632–644 (1930)
Gennip, V., Yves, P., Mark, A.: Copolymer- homopolymer blends: global energy minimisation and global energy bounds. Calc. Var. Partial. Differ. Equ. 33(1), 75–111 (2008)
Giuliani, Alessandro., Lebowitz, Joel L., Lieb, Elliott H..: “Pattern formation in systems with competing interactions.” AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 1091. No. 1. American Institute of Physics, 2009
Giuliani, A., Seiringer, R.: Periodic striped ground states in Ising models with competing interactions. Commun. Math. Phys. 347(3), 983–1007 (2016)
Goldman, M., Runa, E.: On the optimality of stripes in a variational model with non-local interactions. Calc. Var. Partial. Differ. Equ. 58(3), 1–26 (2019)
Goldman, D., Muratov, C.B., Serfaty, S.: The \(\Gamma \)-limit of the two-dimensional Ohta–Kawasaki energy. I. Droplet density. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 210(2), 581–613 (2013)
Goldman, D., Muratov, C.B., Serfaty, S.: The \(\Gamma \)-limit of the two-dimensional Ohta–Kawasaki energy. Droplet arrangement via the renormalized energy. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 212(2), 445–501 (2014)
Hardy, C.M., et al.: Model ABC triblock copolymers and blends near the order-disorder transition. Macromolecules 35(8), 3189–3197 (2002)
Huang, H., Alexander-Katz, A.: Dissipative particle dynamics for directed self-assembly of block copolymers. J. Chem. Phys. 151(15), 154905 (2019)
Ito, A.: Domain patterns in copolymer-homopolymer mixtures. Phys. Rev. E 58(5), 6158 (1998)
Jiang, Ying, et al.: Effect of polydispersity on the phase diagrams of linear ABC triblock copolymers in two dimensions. J. Phys. Chem. B 109(44), 21047–21055 (2005)
Kang, X., Ren, X.: Ring pattern solutions of a free boundary problem in diblock copolymer morphology. Phys. D 238(6), 645–665 (2009)
Kang, X., Ren, X.: The pattern of multiple rings from morphogenesis in development. J. Nonlinear Sci. 20(6), 747–779 (2010)
Kerschbaum, A.: Striped patterns for generalized antiferromagnetic functionals with power law kernels of exponent smaller than \( d+ 2\). arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02992 (2021)
Knüpfer, H., Muratov, C.B., Novaga, M.: Low density phases in a uniformly charged liquid. Commun. Math. Phys. 345(1), 141–183 (2016)
Lawlor, G.R.: Double bubbles for immiscible fluids in \(\mathbb{R}^n\). J. Geom. Anal. 24(1), 190–204 (2014)
Liu, M., et al.: Theoretical study of phase behavior of frustrated ABC linear triblock copolymers. Macromolecules 45(23), 9522–9530 (2012)
Liu, Y.H., Chew, L.Y., Yu, M.Y.: Self-assembly of complex structures in a two-dimensional system with competing interaction forces. Phys. Rev. E 78(6), 066405 (2008)
Luo, W., Zhao, Y.: Nonlocal effect on a generalized Ohta-Kawasaki model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05394 (2022)
Lyubimov, I., Wessels, M.G., Jayaraman, A.: Molecular dynamics simulation and PRISM theory study of assembly in solutions of amphiphilic bottlebrush block copolymers. Macromolecules 51(19), 7586–7599 (2018)
Mai, Y., Eisenberg, A.: Self-assembly of block copolymers. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41(18), 5969–5985 (2012)
Matsen, M.W.: Gyroid versus double-diamond in ABC triblock copolymer melts. J. Chem. Phys. 108(2), 785–796 (1998)
Mogi, Y., et al.: Preparation and morphology of triblock copolymers of the ABC type. Macromolecules 25(20), 5408–5411 (1992)
Mogi, Y., et al.: Superlattice structures in morphologies of the ABC triblock copolymers. Macromolecules 27(23), 6755–6760 (1994)
Morini, M., Sternberg, P.: Cascade of minimizers for a nonlocal isoperimetric problem in thin domains. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 46(3), 2033–2051 (2014)
Mossa, S., et al.: Ground-state clusters for short-range attractive and long-range repulsive potentials. Langmuir 20(24), 10756–10763 (2004)
Muratov, CB.: Theory of domain patterns in systems with long-range interactions of Coulombic type. Ph.D thesis, Boston University, (1998)
Muratov, C.B.: Theory of domain patterns in systems with long-range interactions of Coulomb type. Phys. Rev. E 66(6), 066108 (2002)
Muratov, C.B.: Droplet phases in non-local Ginzburg-Landau models with Coulomb repulsion in two dimensions. Commun. Math. Phys. 299(1), 45–87 (2010)
Muratov, C.B., Simon, T.M.: A nonlocal isoperimetric problem with dipolar repulsion. Commun. Math. Phys. 372(3), 1059–1115 (2019)
Nakazawa, H., Ohta, T.: Microphase separation of ABC-type triblock copolymers. Macromolecules 26(20), 5503–5511 (1993)
Ohta, T., Ito, A.: Dynamics of phase separation in copolymer-homopolymer mixtures. Phys. Rev. E 52(5), 5250 (1995)
Ohta, T., Kawasaki, K.: Equilibrium morphology of block copolymer melts. Macromolecules 19(10), 2621–2632 (1986)
Reddy, A., et al.: Block Copolymers beneath the Surface: measuring and modeling complex morphology at the subdomain scale. Macromolecules (2021)
Ren, X., Wang, C.: A stationary core-shell assembly in a ternary inhibitory system. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. A 37(2), 983 (2017)
Ren, X., Wang, C.: Stationary disk assemblies in a ternary system with long range interaction. Commun. Contemp. Math. 21(06), 1850046 (2019)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: On the multiplicity of solutions of two nonlocal variational problems. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 31(4), 909–924 (2000)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Triblock copolymer theory: ordered ABC lamellar phase. J. Nonlinear Sci. 13(2) (2003)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Triblock copolymer theory: free energy, disordered phase and weak segregation. Phys. D 178(1–2), 103–117 (2003)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Many droplet pattern in the cylindrical phase of diblock copolymer morphology. Rev. Math. Phys. 19(08), 879–921 (2007)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Single droplet pattern in the cylindrical phase of diblock copolymer morphology. J. Nonlinear Sci. 17(5), 471–503 (2007)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Spherical solutions to a nonlocal free boundary problem from diblock copolymer morphology. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 39(5), 1497–1535 (2008)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Oval shaped droplet solutions in the saturation process of some pattern formation problems. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 70(4), 1120–1138 (2009)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: A toroidal tube solution to a problem involving mean curvature and Newtonian potential. Interfaces Free Bound. 13(1), 127–154 (2011)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: A double bubble in a ternary system with inhibitory long range interaction. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 208(1), 201–253 (2013)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Asymmetric and symmetric double bubbles in a ternary inhibitory system. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 46(4), 2798–2852 (2014)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: Double tori solution to an equation of mean curvature and Newtonian potential. Calc. Var. Partial. Differ. Equ. 49(3), 987–1018 (2014)
Ren, X., Wei, J.: A double bubble assembly as a new phase of a ternary inhibitory system. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 215(3), 967–1034 (2015)
Sides, S.W., Fredrickson, G.H.: Parallel algorithm for numerical self-consistent field theory simulations of block copolymer structure. Polymer 44(19), 5859–5866 (2003)
Spadaro, N.: Uniform energy and density distribution: diblock copolymers’ functional. Interfaces Free Bound. 11(3), 447–474 (2009)
Sternberg, P., Topaloglu, I.: On the global minimizers of a nonlocal isoperimetric problem in two dimensions. Interfaces Free Bound. 13(1), 155–169 (2011)
Sun, M., et al.: Morphology and phase diagram of A B C linear triblock copolymers: parallel real-space self-consistent-field-theory simulation. Phys. Rev. E 77(1), 016701 (2008)
Tang, P., et al.: Morphology and phase diagram of complex block copolymers: ABC linear triblock copolymers. Phys. Rev. E 69(3), 031803 (2004)
Topaloglu, I.: On a nonlocal isoperimetric problem on the two-sphere. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 12(1), 597 (2013)
Van Gennip, Y., Peletier, M.A.: Stability of monolayers and bilayers in a copolymer-homopolymer blend model. Interfaces Free Bound. 11(3), 331–373 (2009)
Wang, C.: Analysis and modeling of self-organized systems with long range interaction. Ph.D thesis, The George Washington University, (2018)
Wang, C., Ren, X., Zhao, Y.: Bubble assemblies in ternary systems with long range interaction. Commun. Math. Sci. 17(8), 2309–2324 (2019)
Wickham, R.A., Shi, A.-C.: Noncentrosymmetric lamellar phase in blends of ABC triblock and ac diblock copolymers. Macromolecules 34(18), 6487–6494 (2001)
Wong, B.: Points of view: color blindness. Nat. Methods 8, 441 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1618
Xia, J., et al.: Microphase ordering mechanisms in linear ABC triblock copolymers. A dynamic density functional study. Macromolecules 38(22), 9324–9332 (2005)
Zheng, W., Wang, Z.-G.: Morphology of ABC triblock copolymers. Macromolecules 28(21), 7215–7223 (1995)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professors Chong Wang, Xiaofeng Ren, An-Chang Shi, Juncheng Wei and Yanxiang Zhao for helpful discussions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Rustum Choksi.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation DMS-2012562 and DMS-1937254.
Appendices
A Underlying Mechanism of Interactions Between Generalized Charges
The decomposition (5.10) of \([f_{ij}]\) suggests a possible way to interpret the interactions between the generalized charges:
-
Each charge consists of two sub-charges, as shown in Fig. 9. For example, a charge of type 1 consists of a sub-charge of type and a sub-charge of type .
-
For \(i\ne j\), the potential energy due to the interaction between the pair of sub-charges at \(\vec x\) and at \(\vec y\) is \(f_{ij}\,G(\vec x,\vec y)\), and that between at \(\vec x\) and at \(\vec y\) is \(-f_{ij}\,G(\vec x,\vec y)\). There is no interaction within other pairs.
We further assume that there are van der Waals forces between charges, that the cohesive forces between charges of the same type are stronger than the adhesive forces between charges of different types, so that the charges behave like immiscible fluids in the thermodynamic limit at certain temperature, with the interfacial tensions being \(\{c_{ij}\}\). (For a general account of the interfacial tension, see, e.g., Birdi (2015).) To ensure the overall charge neutrality, there must be the same number of charges of each type (Fig. 9 shows four charges of each type). In accordance with the volume constraints, the volume ratio of charges of types 1, 2 and 3 is \(\omega _1:\omega _2:\omega _3\). On the continuum level, such a discrete particle system can be described by the ternary O–K free energy and thus serves as an intuitive analogy. This analogy naturally raises a question on how to arrange balls in 1-D in order to minimize the potential energy between charges, a question further discussed in Sect. 6.2.1 and Appendix B. The decomposition into simple interactions between sub-charges helps us answer this question for \(f_{12},f_{13},f_{23}\leqslant 0\) (see Proposition 7.6).
B Optimal Arrangement of Charged Balls in 1-D
1.1 B.1 Binary case
Given a positive integer n, consider a 1-D periodic cell [0, 1] packed with n balls of type \(A\) and n balls of type \(B\) , with unit amounts of positive and negative point charges at their centers, respectively. We assume that all the balls have the same radius \(\frac{1}{4n}\), and that their centers are located at \(\frac{k}{2n}\) for \(k = 1,2,\cdots ,2n\). Let \(u:\big \{\frac{k}{2n}\big \}_{k=1}^{2n}\rightarrow \pm 1\) represent the arrangement of the balls, with 1 and \(-1\) denoting \(A\) and \(B\) , respectively, then the total potential energy between charges can be written as
where G is given by (7.4). By Proposition 7.1, the alternating arrangement \(A\)\(B\)\(\cdots \;\) \(A\)\(B\) minimizes U, as shown in Fig. 10 (Throughout Appendix B,“minimize” refers to “globally minimize”.). This is a long-range variant of the 1-D antiferromagnetic Ising model without external fields, subject to the zero overall spin constraint.
Proposition 7.1
The minimizer of (7.1) is (up to translation) \(u\big (\frac{k}{2n}\big )=(-1)^{k-1}\) for \(k = 1,2,\cdots ,2n\).
Proof
(Inspired by Ren and Wei (2000, Proof of Proposition 3.1) Within an optimal arrangement, let us prove that l must be 1 for any segment like the following
By translational invariance, we can assume that the above segment occupies the first \(l\!+\!2\) sites \(\big \{\frac{k}{2n}\big \}_{k=1}^{l+2}\). By assumption, U should not decrease if we swap the \(A\) and \(B\) at the first two sites. Let \(u^*\) represent this optimal arrangement, then we have
Define the electrostatic potential
Then from (7.2), we know
From (7.4) and \(\sum _{m=1}^{2n}u\big (\frac{m}{2n}\big )=0\), we can see that the potential V is piecewise quadratic in x with the coefficient of \(x^2\) being 0 and thus is linear on every subinterval \([\frac{k-1}{2n},\frac{k}{2n}]\) for \(k=1,\cdots ,2n\). Define the electrostatic field \(E(x;u)=\mathrm {d}V(x;u)/\mathrm {d}x\), then E is piecewise constant in x and
Analogously we have
We also know for \(k=1,\cdots ,2n\!-\!1\),
Consequently, we have \(-\,l>(-1)-1\), that is, \(l=1\). \(\square \)
Remark 7.2
The above proof can be generalized to the case where different types of balls have different sizes, that is, the positions of the point charges are no longer uniform (i.e., \(x_k=\frac{k}{2n}\) for \(k=1,2,\cdots ,2n\)). Instead, we have
where \(x_0=0\) is identified with \(x_{2n}=1\) so that \(u(x_0)=u(x_{2n})\), and the radii of \(A\) and \(B\) balls are \(\frac{1+\omega }{4n}\) and \(\frac{1-\omega }{4n}\), respectively, for some \(\omega \in (-1,1)\backslash \{0\}\).
1.2 B.2 Ternary Case
Given a positive integer n, consider a 1-D periodic cell [0, 1] packed with n balls of type \(A\) , n balls of type \(B\) , and n balls of type \(C\) , labeled by 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Balls of type i are assumed to have the radius \(\omega _i/(2n)\). We also assume \(f_{ij}\,G(x,y)\) to be the potential energy between a ball of type i centered at x and a ball of type j centered at y. The total potential energy U is the sum of all the pairwise interactions:
where G is given by (7.4). The k-th ball, which is of type \(i_k\), is centered at \(x_k\), and the m-th ball, which is of type \(j_m\), is centered at \(y_m\). Therefore, we have the following relation
for \(k=1,2,\cdots ,3n\), with \(x_0=y_0=0\) and \(i_0=j_0=i_{3n}=j_{3n}\).
Conjecture 7.3
For any admissible interaction strength matrix \([f_{ij}]\) and any positive \(\{\omega _i\}\) satisfying \(\sum _i\omega _i=1\), the arrangement \(A\)\(B\)\(C\)\(\cdots \)\(A\)\(B\)\(C\) (i.e., \(i_k\equiv k\mod 3\)) minimizes (7.3), as illustrated on the right side of Fig. 5.
We have numerically verified Conjecture 7.3 from \(n=2\) to 8 for the Cartesian product of 100 choices of \([f_{ij}]\) and 72 choices of \(\{\omega _i\}\) (up to permutations we can assume \(\omega _1\leqslant \omega _2\leqslant \omega _3\)), as shown in Figs.11 and 12. We also prove some special cases of Conjecture 7.3 in Propositions 7.4 and 7.6.
Proposition 7.4
For \([f_{ij}]\) given by (5.6), the minimizers of (7.3) are (up to translation and reflection) the following with any \(l_k\geqslant 0\) satisfying \(\sum _{k=1}^nl_k=n\),
Proof
For (5.6), balls of type \(C\) do not engage in the interaction between charges. Similar to Proof of Proposition 7.1, we can prove that within any optimal arrangement, \(A\) and \(B\) must be alternating if \(C\) is ignored. Now let us exclude the following segment from optimal arrangements:
By translational invariance, we can assume that the above segment occupies the first 3 sites \(\{x_k\}_{k=1}^3\). Define the potential created by charges at all other sites as
Among the remaining balls centered at \(\{y_m\}_{m=4}^{3n}\), there are one more \(B\) than \(A\) , so \(V_2\) is piecewise quadratic in x with the coefficient of \(x^2\) being \(-\frac{1}{2}\), and thus is strictly concave on \([x_0,x_4]\). Therefore by swapping the \(A\) at \(x_2\) and the \(C\) at either \(x_1\) or \(x_3\), we can decrease U by the amount
Analogously, we can rule out other segments like \(C\)\(A\)\(B\)\(A\)\(C\) , \(C\)\(A\)\(B\)\(A\)\(B\)\(A\)\(C\) , etc. Lastly, let us verify that different choices of \(\{l_k\}\) yield the same U. Consider two \(A\)\(B\) dipoles separated by \(C\)
between which the potential energy is
and is independent of l. \(\square \)
Remark 7.5
In Proposition 7.4, if we penalize \(A\)\(C\) and \(B\)\(C\) interfaces with equal weights, then the minimizer is unique, i.e., \(A\)\(B\)\(\cdots \;\) \(A\)\(B\)\(C\)\(\cdots \;\) \(C\) . This is reminiscent of the results in Van Gennip and Peletier (2008, Theorems 4 and 5) where \(C\) forms only one macrodomain.
Proposition 7.6
For \([f_{ij}]\) given by (5.10) with nonpositive \(f_{12}\), \(f_{13}\) and \(f_{23}\), the arrangement \(A\)\(B\)\(C\)\(\cdots \)\(A\)\(B\)\(C\) minimizes (7.3).
Proof
By (5.10), \([f_{ij}]\) can be decomposed into three components, which are permutations of (5.6) and represent the interactions between sub-charges shown in Fig. 9. With the assumption \(f_{12},f_{13},f_{23}\leqslant 0\), all three components are simultaneously minimized by the cyclic arrangement \(A\)\(B\)\(C\)\(\cdots \)\(A\)\(B\)\(C\) , according to Proposition 7.4. \(\square \)
C Numerical Computation of Free Energy in a 1-D Periodic Cell
We now offer some details of the numerical computation to seek for the 1-D global minimizers of the free energy (1.2). For each pattern, we obtain the optimal layer widths numerically, with the initial guess (for optimization) having uniform layer widths. We use , a constrained local minimization function in MATLAB, with the constraints being the volume constraints and nonnegativity of layer widths. For the input argument , we set , and to be \(10^{-6}\), which should be sufficient for our purposes. Since patterns are defined modulo translation (Ren and Wei 2003b, Definition 4.1), we can avoid some redundant computation. For further acceleration, we use MATLAB’s parallel tool to work on multiple (e.g., 24) patterns simultaneously.
We adopt a simple algorithm based on (4.3) to compute the long-range term of (1.2). Noticing that the Green’s function on [0, 1] with periodic boundary conditions is given by Ren and Wei (2003b, Equation (4.19))
we have \(\int _{y_1}^{y_2}\int _{x_1}^{x_2}G(x,y)\mathrm {d}{x}\mathrm {d}{y}=F(x_2\!-\!y_1)-F(x_1\!-\!y_1)-F(x_2\!-\!y_2)+F(x_1\!-\!y_2)\), where
Now, given a pattern and the positions of interfaces, the following algorithm returns the free energy J.
Although this algorithm is of complexity \(O\big (\) ⌃\(2\big )\), it is not a bottleneck compared to the exhaustive search (among all the patterns) of complexity \(O\big (2\) \(\big )\), since the total complexity is the product of the above two and that of (for constrained optimization in ).
D Analytic calculation of free energy of 1-D periodic patterns
For \(\Omega =[0,1]\) with periodic boundary conditions, the long-range term of (1.1) can be rewritten as
where \(v_j(x)=\int _0^1G(x,y)\,\big (u_j(y)-\omega _j\big )\mathrm {d}{y}\) (so that \(-v_j''=u_j-\omega _j\)) and \(w_j=-v_j'\,\). Denoting \({\vec {w}}=[w_1,w_2,w_3]^\mathrm{T}\), we can rewrite the above right-hand side as
Ren and Wei (2003b, Section 4), studied a local minimizer which is \(A\)\(B\)\(C\) identically repeating for n times. In that case, \({\vec {w}}\) is periodic with period 1/n, so one only needs to solve the following equation in one period in order to obtain the free energy
where \({\vec {\omega }}\) denotes \([\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3]^\mathrm{T}\), and \(\{\vec e_1,\vec e_2,\vec e_3\}\) forms the standard basis. In this way, we can obtain (3.1).
Analogously, for \(A\)\(B\)\(A\)\(C\) identically repeating for n times (with all the \(A\) layers having the same width), we can obtain (3.2) by solving the following equation
E Alternative Derivation of the Admissibility Conditions
As mentioned in Remark -(i), there is an alternative derivation of the conditions in Theorem 5.2 from the following three requirements:
-
For \(\vec u={\vec {\omega }}\), the long-range term (4.2) attains zero;
-
For any \(\vec u\) satisfying the incompressibility condition \(\vec u^\mathrm{T}{\vec {1}}=1\), the long-range term (4.2) is nonnegative;
-
\([\gamma _{ij}]\) is symmetric.
Under Neumann or periodic boundary conditions, we have \(\int _{\Omega }G(\vec x,\vec y)\mathrm {d}{\vec x}=0\) for any \(\vec y\in \Omega \), so the first requirement is automatically satisfied and therefore does not lead to the condition \({\vec {\omega }}^\mathrm{T}[\gamma _{ij}]{\vec {\omega }}=0\). Moreover, the second requirement does not lead to the condition \([\gamma _{ij}]\succcurlyeq 0\) because of the incompressibility condition. However, as explained in Proposition 7.7, there are many equivalent choices of \([\gamma _{ij}]\), and one of them satisfies \([\gamma _{ij}]{\vec {\omega }}={\vec {0}}\) and \([\gamma _{ij}]\succcurlyeq 0\) as desired.
Proposition 7.7
Under the incompressibility condition, among all the \([\gamma _{ij}]\) fulfilling the above three requirements and yielding the same long-range term (4.2), there is a unique one satisfying \([\gamma _{ij}]\,{\vec {\omega }}={\vec {0}}\). Meanwhile, it also satisfies \([\gamma _{ij}]\succcurlyeq 0\).
Proof
Under the asssumption \(u_1+u_2+u_3=1\), we have \(\vec u=[u_1,u_2,u_3]^\mathrm{T}={\mathcal {A}}[u_1,u_2]^\mathrm{T}+[0,0,1]^\mathrm{T}\), where \({\mathcal {A}}\) is given by (7.5), and the second summand is constant. Since \(\int _{\Omega }G(\vec x,\vec y)\mathrm {d}{\vec x}=0\) for any \(\vec y\in \Omega \), we can rewrite (4.2) as
where \([{\tilde{\gamma }}_{ij}]={\mathcal {A}}^\mathrm{T}[\gamma _{ij}]{\mathcal {A}}\). To ensure that the above integral is nonnegative, we need to impose the condition \([{\tilde{\gamma }}_{ij}]\succcurlyeq 0\). (In fact, we can diagonalize \([{\tilde{\gamma }}_{ij}]\) into \(Q^\mathrm{T}\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)\,Q\), and rewrite the above integral as a quadratic form like (4.4), from which it would be clear that \(\lambda _1\) and \(\lambda _2\) should be both nonnegative.)
By Lemma 7.8, there is a class of equivalent choices of \([\gamma _{ij}]\), but only one of them satisfies \([\gamma _{ij}]{\vec {\omega }}={\vec {0}}\). Such \([\gamma _{ij}]\) is given by (5.7) and is positive semi-definite since we have \([{\tilde{\gamma }}_{ij}]\succcurlyeq 0\). \(\square \)
Lemma 7.8
Define \(T:S_3\rightarrow S_2\) to be \(T(H)={\mathcal {A}}^\mathrm{T}H{\mathcal {A}}\), where \(S_m\) is the set of \(m\times m\) symmetric real matrices, and
then T is surjective. The kernel of T is \(\big \{{\vec {1}}\vec p^\mathrm{T}+\vec p{\vec {1}}^\mathrm{T}\;\big |\;\vec p\in {\mathbb {R}}^3\big \}\). Given any \({\vec {w}}=[w_1,w_2,w_3]^\mathrm{T}\in {\mathbb {R}}^3\) with \({\vec {w}}^\mathrm{T}{\vec {1}}=1\), in the quotient space \(S_3/\mathrm{ker}(T)\), the equivalence class of any \(H\in S_3\) has a unique representative \({\tilde{H}}\) satisfying \({\tilde{H}}\,{\vec {w}}={\vec {0}}\). This representative is given by \({\tilde{H}}={\mathcal {B}}^\mathrm{T}T(H){\mathcal {B}}\), where
Proof
We can take \(H=\begin{bmatrix}H_1 &{} 0\\ 0 &{} 0\end{bmatrix}\), where \(H_1\in S_2\), then \(T(H)=H_1\), so T is surjective. Since \({\vec {1}}^\mathrm{T}{\mathcal {A}}={\vec {0}}^\mathrm{T}\), based on the rank–nullity theorem we know \(\mathrm{ker}(T)=\big \{{\vec {1}}\vec p^\mathrm{T}+\vec p{\vec {1}}^\mathrm{T}\;\big |\;\vec p\in {\mathbb {R}}^3\big \}\). For any \(H\in S_3\), we have
where I is an identity matrix. According to the Sherman–Morrison formula, there is a unique \(\vec p\) such that the above right-hand side vanishes. We can verify that \({\tilde{H}}={\mathcal {B}}^\mathrm{T}T(H){\mathcal {B}}\) is the corresponding representative within the equivalence class of H, by checking \({\tilde{H}}{\vec {w}}={\vec {0}}\) and \(T({\tilde{H}})=T(H)\), which are clear from \({\mathcal {B}}{\vec {w}}={\vec {0}}\) and \({\mathcal {B}}{\mathcal {A}}=I\), respectively. \(\square \)
Remark 7.9
The results in this section can be generalized from \(\vec u\in {\mathbb {R}}^3\) to any dimension \({\mathbb {R}}^m\), by changing (7.5) into
and changing (7.6) into
where \(I_m\) is the \(m\times m\) identity matrix, and \({\vec {1}}\) is a vector whose components are all 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, Z., Du, Q. On the Ternary Ohta–Kawasaki Free Energy and Its One-dimensional Global Minimizers. J Nonlinear Sci 32, 61 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00332-022-09814-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00332-022-09814-9