PHYSICAL REVIEW A VOLUME 29, NUMBER 3 MARCH 1984

Geometrical models of interface evolution

Richard C. Brower
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Haruard Uniuersity, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

David A. Kessler
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544

Joel Koplik and Herbert Levine

Schlumberger Doll R-esearch, P. O. Box 307, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877
(Received 18 July 1983)
We introduce a class of models for the motion of a boundary between time-dependent phase
domains in which the interface itself satisfies an equation of motion. The intended application is to
systems for which competing stabilizing and destabilizing forces act on the phase boundary to pro-
duce irregular or patterned structures, such as those which occur in solidification. We discuss the
kinematics of moving interfaces in two or more dimensions in terms of their intrinsic geometric
properties. We formulate local equations of motion as tractable simplifications of the complex non-
local dynamics that govern moving-interface problems. Special solutions for dendritic crystal
growth and their stability are analyzed in some detail.

I. INTRODUCTION the heat reservoir controlling the liquid temperature. This

There are a host of patterns formed in nature by the
growth of an interface between two domains. One of the
most familiar is the evolution of a snowflake crystal via
the process of solidification. Other systems which exhib-
it similar behavior include water displacing oil in an un-
derground reservoir, propagation of flame fronts, and
biological cell differentiation. Also, many problems of
incompressible fluid flow can be cast into this language by
focusing on boundaries between regions of differing densi-
ties and viscosities.
All of these systems have the feature that there exists a
moving boundary between two phases, on which compet-
ing stabilizing and destabilizing forces act. The physical
origins of these forces depend on the particular system
under investigation. In solidification, thermal gradients
destabilize a planar or spherical interface but surface ten-
sion prevents arbitrarily irregular growth, and the inter-
play between the two leads to the patterns observed. ' In
microscopic inodels of immiscible fluid displacement in
porous media, random surface tension forces create an ir-
regular interface but fluid viscosity acts to restrain this ef-
fect. In current macroscopic models of the same process,
however, the role of the forces is reversed and mobility
contrasts destabilize while surface tension restrains (as in
solidification).
The equations obeyed by systems with moving domain
boundaries are often quite complicated. For definiteness,
let us focus on the solidification process, imagining a solid
crystal immersed in a supercooled liquid. The rate-
limiting component of the crystal growth process is dif-
fusion of the latent heat. Schematically, as the solid ex-
pands, it generates heat and this heat must diffuse out to
leads to an interface motion coupled nonlinearly to the lo-
cal temperature field which obeys the diffusion equation.
Although this example is, in some sense, the simplest case
of a moving interface, there is still no theoretical under-
standing of the behavior of the system. Not only is ana-
lytic computation exceedingly difficult, but also numerical
solutions are still very primitive.
Because of the above-mentioned analytic and computa-
tional difficulties, studies of pattern formation have so far
failed to provide a detailed understanding of how the final
state of the systems depends on the underlying dynamics.
We do not know which features (if any) are "universal"
and which are dependent on the specification of the initial
state and specific dynamical assumptions. In fact, most
of the literature in this field stresses quantitative predic-
tions in technologically important processes with little em-
phasis on general considerations.
In this paper, we wish to develop the hypothesis of sim-
ple, geometrically motivated models for interfacial
growth. First, we will consider the purely geometrical as-
pects of moving boundaries — our considerations can
therefore be applied to a wide variety of growth dynamics.
Subsequently, we will specialize to the simplest possible
class of models: local equations at the surface. By local,
we mean equations whereby the velocity is locally deter-
mined by the curvature and its derivatives. Clearly, this
class of models is not meant as a fully realistic alternative
to the actual evolution equations which will correctly
reproduce all the intricacies of the long-time development
of the system. Nevertheless, these models are useful for
understanding the relevance of various analytic structures
(steady-state solutions, linear stability, etc. ) as well as for
building some intuition as to mechanisms whereby real

1335 Qc1984 The American Physical Society

 a336 BRO%'ER, KESSLER, KOPLIK, AND LEVINE

patterns evolve. —/
The outline of the remainder of this paper is as follows. g ~
Bs
In Sec. II, we describe the kinematics of geometrical evo-
lution (sometimes referred to as contour dynamics ). In and its derivative (which must be parallel to the unit nor-
Sec. III, we specialize to a class of local models which are mal n) defines the curvature
motivated by the solidification problem. We present some
simple solutions and consider their (linear) stability. Fi- K= —Pl ' 8 x
$2
nally, Sec. IV is devoted to the dendritic steady-state solu-
tion. An Appendix contains some computational details. In two dimensions it is convenient to describe the curve by
the complex position z=x+iy. In this notation, the
tangent and normal vectors are written as
II. KINEMATICS FOR GEOMETRICAL
EVOLUTION
~=z'=age'@'I n = '
ie'@—

where 8(s) is the angle between the tangent and the x axis.
Imagine a system evolving dynamically in d dimensions The curvature is just the rate at which 8 changes,
with a d —1-dimensional interface separating two K=d8/ds. Then differentiating the evolution equation
domains. The interfacial surface can be specified parame- z=nU, we have
trically by the position vector x (t, o ) where
tr, 1 &a &d —1 is a set of parameters and t is the time. (n U)
To find the surface at a later time we need to know the Bo'
projection of the velocity in the normal direction whose real and imaginary parts yield

n "=U(x,a x, . . . ). g =2gvU, (7a)

aU
Of course, the velocity functional U may be an extremely (7b)
Bs
complex functional of the interfacial position. For exam-
Finally, (7b) can be differentiated with respect to s using
ple, it may require the solution of a partial-differential
equation throughout the entire d-dimensional space, to ac- 8 8 d 8
count for flow of heat, mass, and momentum away from dt Bs Bs dt Bs
the interface. Nevertheless, there are some features of the
motion which follow purely from the kinematics of Eq. to yield the curvature equation
(1). In this section we focus on these features. 82
In Eq. (1), the coordinates o are arbitrary. We there- ~2+
fore must assume that the functional U is invariant under Bs
the general reparametrization It is useful to note the geometrical significance of these
formulas. Equation (7) shows that a segment of the curve
cr +cr (t, o~) .—
of given r and g rotates by —BU/Bs and dilates by
We shall refer to this transformation as a change of V g KU. Equation (8) then gives the complete evolution of
"
"gauge. Usually, there is no preferred position or orien- the original curve in terms of a single function, its curva-
tation, giving rise to the requirement that U be a scalar ture.
under rotations and translations in d dimensions. Howev- In order for the functions ~ and 8 to describe a simple
er, there are systems (growth on a substrate, for example) (i.e., nonintersecting and differentiable) closed curve, they
for which the latter is not necessary, and we make no use must satisfy three constraint equations. The tangent vec-
of such an invariance in this section. tor must rotate through 2m in traversing the curve
I.et us begin with curves in two dimensions. We con- L (t)
sider closed curves x(t, cr), where 0&a. &1 and x(t, 0) f =2~,
K(s, t)ds (9a)
=x(t, l). We use the time-dependent reparametrization where I. (t)=s (t, o=l) is the total arcleng. th, and also the
invariance (2) to impose the condition that the velocity coordinates must return to their starting point. Since
dx/dt is orthogonal to the tangent P=Bx/Bo. We refer
" Bz/Bs =e', the latter condition is
to this choice as the "orthogonal gauge, where now L (E)
e l8(f, s)ds O (9b)
dx dx Bx 0
~
' It is easy to check that these integrals are constants of the
dt dt Ocr
motion by using (7) and (8).
Next, we wish to express the dynamics in terms of gauge- Since the time derivatives in the previous equations are
invariant geometrical quantities such as curvature and not at fixed arclength, the metric equation (7a) is neces-
arclength. On the curve there is a metric, g = v'~, such sary to complete the description. By studying the motion
that the arclength s is given by at fixed s, we derive the nonlocal equation
s (0.) = f v'g (n')d u' . (4)
+ Qs2 U—
K s
KUds (10)
The unit tangent vector is i
Bs
 GEOMETRICAL MODELS OF INTERFACE EVOLUTION 1337

where we have used d/dt =8/Bt ~, +sB/Bs. As in most As in the two-dimensional case, the curvature tensor
gauge problems, a gauge-invariant formulation introduces must satisfy some constraints in order to correspond to a
nonlocality. closed surface, but these are of two forms. First, there are
%'e can extend these considerations to the general case integrability conditions for the set of partial-differential
of a surface evolving in d dimensions, using standard re- equations giving h p in terms of derivatives of x. These
sults of tensor calculus. If a =(a', . . . , o" ') is an ar- conditions, the Gauss-Codazzi equations, are
bitrary set of coordinates on the surface, we have a set of —I —I
tangent vectors a~=Ox/Bo. which from (3) obey the evo- Qyh~p- —Bph~y p bye y hp5 (19)
lution equation and when they hold, the surface can be found locally.
Again, one can show that these equations are satisfied at
all times if they hold at t =0. Second, there are global
conditions analogous to (9) which require the resulting
On the surface, there is a metric tensor surface to be closed. The analog of (9a) is the Gauss-
Bonnet theorem involving the surface integral of the
gap +a +p Gaussian curvature, but in place of (9b) one h'as an infinite
" set of equations, one for each closed curve on the surface.
and a curvature tensor, or "second fundamental form, Let us return to the single closed curve in two dimen-
defined analogously to (S) by sions for which
hp ——nB~p. z= e ds +zo
Using the standard convention of raising indices with g p, As t — +co, the arclength will go to infinity in many
the inverse of the metric tensor, we can alternately write growth models. To test for the possibility that the inter-
(13a) as face becomes a fractal with structure on an increasing
8 n=h p~p. range of length scales, we define a series of exponents
(13b)
which characterize the long-time behavior of the curve.
Combining (10), (11), and (13) the metric evolves accord- First, we write
ing to
. 2h .
g p —— pU (14)
for the length of the curve. The area enclosed by the
The time evolution of the normal can be found from ma- curve is readily shown to be
nipulation of the identity n r =0 and (11) to be I. L
s s--' 'e Sg(g
I ) —Eg(g)
e
dn 2i
dt +il)) ') —i8t
)l (21)
and from (12) we have 4i

h p=(h yhrp dip+I r)U,

prB—
and we assume that A-t as taboo. Therefore the test
for nontrivial scaling takes the familiar form of an auto-
where the "connection" is I p —— ~p. B r . In general correlation function for e'@'.
dimension, the eigenvalues of h p are the principal curva- Similar considerations can be used to deal with a fractal
tures of the surface at a point, and (14) and (1S) are the exponent defined for R, the radius of gyration of the curve
generalizations of (7) and (8).
In three dimensions it is conventional to work with the
R = (z*(s)z(s) ) —(z*($) ) (z(s) ) —t' .
mean curvature ~ = —,tr(h p) and the Gaussian curvature
'
This formula has the advantage of immediately generating
~g
— det(h p). It is straightforward to show that to higher dimensions if we consider the connected correla-
tion (x(s) x(s)) —(x(s)) .
ic~ = —(2~ —ag+ —, V )U, (16) Finally we mention two extremely general criteria for
where the invariant Laplace-Beltrami operator is labeling different processes. The first is whether or not
the enclosed volume is a constant of the motion. This
—
V' =g P(B dp I r pBr), clearly depends on whether I
ds U(x(s))=0. For in-
compressible fluid problems this is indeed the case; for the
irreversible growth of a snowAake it is not. The second is
(17) the existence of an action principle, whereby the equation
is just of the form 5I/5x(s) =0. This appears to be false
and that
in almost all cases studied to date.
g =4g~ U,
where g =det(g p) (The dement of area on the surface is
III. LOCAL GROWTH MODEL
gdcr' do '.) Note that although these equations are We wish to introduce the simplest case of geometrical
formally similar to (7) and (8) all components of g and h evolution models. ' Specifically, we will consider cases
are required for their evaluation. where the velocity functional U is a local function of the
1338 BRG%'ER, KESSLER, KOPLIK, AND LEVINE

interfacial surface geometry. For now, we will assume ro- of time-dependent radius i(t)=V(llr). For a=P=O,
tational invariance (we will return to this point later) and this just gives r(t)=[2t+. r (0)]'~. To see the meaning
so we must construct U from the curvature and its covari- of y, we perform a stability analysis around this solution.
ant derivatives. Restricting ourselves to two dimensions, It suffices to consider perturbations normal to the original
we assume curve, since any tangential perturbation can be eliminated
by a suitable gauge transformation (2). (In the Appendix,
= V(z)+y 8 K
in a different example, we show explicitly that tangential
U
S2
perturbations drop out of the linear stability analysis. ) We
First we discuss how one chooses the "potential" V and then have
then return to the importance of y. V must embody much
x(t, 80) =r[r(t)+e(t, 8o)], (26)
of the macroscopic features of the particular system under
investigation. Again, Iet us turn to solidification. A stan- where 80 is the polar angle of the original circle. We
dard calculation" shows that the growth rate of a spheri- derive
cal crystal (circular in two dimensions) behaves as
V-1/R for large R. For Eq. (1) to incorporate this I ——
1
--d
2+1 e
behavior, V-a for small a. A planar interface fails to dHo
move at all, except at extremely special values of the un-
dercooling, so V should not contain a constant term. 1 d d
+1
Next, a very small or highly curved piece of solid will r d80 d80
contract due to surface tension or, in other words, there is ~m'
a minimum bubble size for nucleation. We include this Using the eigenfunctions e~ (t, 80) =me cosm 80, the
effect via a term of the form — Pa. , where P '~ is pro- growth rate is
portional to the minimum bubble size. Finally, in the soli-
dificatio process there is an asymmetry between freezing
and remelting of the dynamic interface. This arises sim-
ply because the heat flow is outward from the phase boun-
dary to the heat sink maintaining the liquid at the under- The m =1 mode corresponds to a uniform translation of
cooled temperature. This then suggests the addition of a the circle and is neutrally stable. To see this, note that for
final piece +a~, where u is some measure of the under- ~(8) = ~cos8„
cooling. We arrive then at the evolution equation x
cos8o+ e cos 2 Oo
3' —sin0o+ e cosos»t9o
dx— = 8 K r r
n V(~)+y (24a)
dt Bs and if we define 8O 80+ sin80, then
via 80 ——
V(v) = a + ax —Pa (24b) —
"=cos6, +., ~ =»ne,
,
r r
where we have chosen the unit of length to flx the coeffi-
cient of the linear term in V. Equations similar to (16) which is clearly a circle shifted by e with polar angle Oo.
have been studied in the context of spiral crystal growth This trivial point serves to remind us that reparametriza-
by Muller-Krumbhaar, Burkhardt, and KroH, ' and a tion invariance is very important when dealing with an ar-
mathematical study of curvature-driven growth has been bitrary, extrinsic parametrization such as Oo. This will be
given by Brakke.
' important later in the discussion of the dendrite solution.
Our growth Eq. (24) is reminiscent of a time-dependent The salient feature of Eq. (27) is that the first term is
Landau-Ginsburg model of critical phenomena. Thinking destabilizing for all m if V & 0. Since V-i~ for sufficient-
of the curvature as an order parameter that distinguishes ly large r, eventually this will always occur. This effect is
between regular growth (constant a) and irregular or pat- directly analogous to the Mullins-Sekerka instability" in
terned growth (nonconstant x. ), one might hypothesize the the usual solidification equations. Its origin in the physi-
evolution equation cal system is that an outward kink on an otherwise flat in-
terface will radiate heat more effectively and therefore
will grow faster than its surroundings. The second term is
always a stabilizing influence. Depending on the form of
with a free-energy functional V and the value of R, it will act to limit the range of m
values which are unstable. In this regard, the coefficient
y plays the role of surface tension in the full-growth equa-
E[a]= J ds 2 Bs
+ w(a) (25b) tions.
Based on the form of Eq. (24), one might attempt to
This approach yields an equation similar (but not identi- find stationary solutions of the form d x/dt = 0, which re-
cal) to (24). From this point of view, the terin in y gUll CS
represents the usual interaction of neighboring points on
the curve, and 8' is a potential to be fixed by the physical y-dk = —V(a. ) .
situation. Bs
Equation (16) admits solutions corresponding to a circle This equation can be thought of as a particle of mass y
 GEOMETRICAL MODELS GF INTERFACE EVOLUTION

moving in a potential mell 8'= V s. Then a solution
would correspond to possible periodic orbits in 8'. Recall
that there are three equations of constraint that must be
obeyed by the curvature in order for it to represent a
closed curve. The first is that the integral of the curvature
equals 2m. This can be satisfied by choosing the "energy'*
of the particle such that I
ads over a single "primitive"
orbit equal to 2~/n, and by having the closed curve con-
sist of n traverses of the periodic orbit. It is then easy to
show that since
~
i Hd ~ ~
2mik/n
orbit
i Hd
9
the other constraints will be automatically obeyed for all
n&1. As we will discuss in Sec. IV, there also exist
steady-state solutions wherein the curve maintains its
shape as a function of time but nevertheless translates in
space.
Finally, let us comment on simple extensions of our ab-
solutely local growth dynamics. %'e can imagine remov-
ing the restriction regarding rotational isotropy, and allow
some dependence on either 8= f
a ds, or removing
translation invariance by allowing dependence on the an-
gle of the curve position measured from some special
point (a physical origin). These extensions might be neces-
sary to model effects such as crystalline anisotropy (in,
say, the surface tension) or growth on an underlying sub-
strate. In fact, one of the major goals of the study of
these simple systems is to pinpoint how important these
ostensibly small effects are in controlling the long-time
development of an interface. Another possible extension
is the addition of a forcing term inta Eq. (24) which can
be used to represent the interaction of an external, decou-
pled field with the interface motion. If we then couple
this field back to the interface itself by adding an equation
for its motion too, we arrive at a sort of "boundary layer"
model. This type of system has recently been introduced
by Ben-Jacob et al. to study dendritic crystal growth.
IV. DENDRITIC GROWTH
The solution of the full, nonlocal solidification equa-
tions which appear to have the most relevance for the ac-
tual time development of the system is the dendrite crys-
tal. ' As discussed in great detail by Langer and Muller-
Krumbhaar, ' there exists a mode selection problem for
common with the aforementioned dendrites. These con-
figurations are solutions of the evolution equation at y =0
which, as we have already argued, is analogous to taking
the limit of zero surface tension. Initially, our analysis
will parallel the standard treatment —
we will carry out the
linear stability analysis both excluding and including the y
term and also compute the perturbative shape correction
due to nonzero y. Afterwards, we will argue that for any
nonzero y, the family of steady-state solutions ceases to
exist. We will then comment on how this last fact causes
us to reinterpret the marginal stability hypothesis both for
our local system and for the full solidification equations.
Assume the curve is translating uniformly in the y
direction. If we use the angle made by normal with the y
axis as a (time-dependent) curve parametrization (24a)
reduces to
dx
n —
=U cosO= V(v) .
This equation can be inverted to find a(8) and the latter
integrated to find x(8). Solutions exist for all velocities.
For the simple example a=P=O in (24), x =cosO. This
can be integrated to give the curve (in the frame where the
tip at 8=0 is instantaneously at the origin)
x =pO, y =p ln cosO (30)
with p= 1/U. Near the tip, this is approximately parabolic
with radius p. In this two-dimensional solution, y goes to
infinity at a finite value of x. It is amusing to note that
the analogous system in three dimensions, V(v, ~g ) =~
gives rise to a dendrite which asymptotically approaches a
paraboloid of revolution. This is because such a surface
has a incan curvature proportional to (cosO+cos 8) which
for large distances (8-m/2) is approximately cosO, there-
by solving Eq. (29). One can also ask the question in re-
verse, i.e., which potential V will give rise to an exact par-
abola in two dimensions. A simple calculation shows that
the answer is V(a)-~'~ .
Let us turn to the stability analysis, working with the
a=P=O solution for analytical ease. We use the extrinsic
(i.e., non-gauge-invariant) parametrization Oo, where Oo is
=
just 8 of the unperturbed solution. Then, x x o
+ no5(Oo, t) implies (see Appendix for details)
5"
K=Kp — + gp
2 6 —Kp5 ~

gp 2gp
dendritic crystal growth. In the absence of surface ten-
sion, there exists a complete family of dendritic solutions,
with the velocity determined by the radius of the parabolic 1/2
tip. Experimentally, one observes a unique velocity' go=(&o +3'o ) =psecOo (31b)
which may be related to the point of marginal stability of x. =u cosOo — cos
U Oo(5" +5)+U cosOosinOo5' . (32)
the linear fluctuations around the dendrite. The latter is
the value of the velocity below which the steady-state The perturbation of the left-hand side of the evolution
growth of the dendrite becomes linearly unstable. A selec- equation is just
tion mechanism of this type has been analyzed in detail in
some one-dimensional toy equations. ' However, in the
n. dx—=5 i e, +5'Oo .
full theory, marginal stability remains only a hypothesis
consistent with the data and has not yet been convincingly
demonstrated. p=Uxp =U cospsinp
In this section, we will consider the family of steady-
state configurations of our local models that have much in [which follows from (29)] we find the final equation
1 340 BROKER, KESSLER, KGPLIK, AND LEVINE 29

5= —Uzcos OQ(5" +5) . (33) = 2P2 —4/P 2,

$ 6) = 3' 2 —P 2 (38)

The solutions of (33) are where p 2 —p 3 is thedegenerate root. The marginal stabili-
ty point is then defined by finding the value of y such
5( OQ, r ) = + cosO+ '&
&z ( sin OQ )e "r, that Reco = 0. A simple calculation shows that this condi-
(34)
co = ( —,' + k )U
tion along with the first part of (38) leads to

where Pis an associated Legendre polynomial and k is p = 3 sing;~

e
„cos 2P
real. All modes grow in time, representing the instability 2 cos2$ 27 sin~
of the dendrite. where
To get stabilization and a critical velocity via the mar-
ginal stability hypothesis, one must add the "surface ten- v'7 —1
sion" term, which is of the form P=-, cos
2
—1
a'K aS a aS or
(js ~
BOQ BOQ BOQ
p' =0.518 —i (0. 1616), y
' =2.63 . (39)
One must keep all terms linear in 6, keeping in mind that This value can be verified by direct numerical computa-
' also depends on
(Bs/BOQ) 5, in this case tion of the entire spectrum of Eq. (37). Now, for fixed y,
2 2 1/2
Bs Bx 0$0 the above analysis yields a marginal velocity
ao,
+ u" =(y "/y)'~ . The origin of this behavior is clearly the
ae, BOQ
competition between the instability and the short-distance
restabilization embodied by the y term. For all v ~ v *, all
modes are stable, with a mode of wave vector p~ going
marginal as we approach this value of U from above.
= v cosOp —v cos Op5 Note that we have included the stabilization due to y of
the linear oscillations around the y =0 family of solutions.
To discuss the spectrum of the small oscillations opera- One question that arises is what effect nonzero y will have
tor, we can study the form it takes asymptotically far on the steady-state shape. The simplest procedure is to do
from the tip. This is because corrections from the tip fall the perturbation theory in y for a shape correction. Re-
off exponentially in arclength and therefore will have a calling the fact that 8 is always defined to be n y, we must
negligible effect on the eigenvalues. In this limit, (35) solve
reduces to

~~4
60—
6
' -7 v cosO=K(8)+y
8 K(8)
$2

where now K is thought of as a function of the intrinsic

where P =(m. /2) — 8. Substituting the form 5-$~, this parameter 8. Since K=88/Bs, this can also be written as
reduces to exactly — P . Combining this with the previous 8 BK
term [Eq. (33)], and defining P= ip, we find th— e disper- U cosO=K(8)+y (40)
so ae
sion relationship for the growth rate in
This allows us to solve for the change in K(8) due to the y
5= + 5(p)e
P
term,

to be 5K( 8) = U p cosO( 1 —2 cos 8) . (41)

~& =p —7p —Ep (37) This can then be integrated to give the change in the arc-
length and curve position,
(where co& —co&/U, y =yu ) for the "sidebranch" oscilla-
tions on the side of the dendrite. x (8) =pO — sin(28),
A fourth-order equation of exactly this form was re- 2p (42)
' Their
cently studied by Langer and Muller-Krumbhaar.
analysis proceeds by rewriting the fourth-order relation as y (8) =p ln cosO 1+ [cos(28) —1] .
P 2p
4.
We can express this in terms of the extrinsic parameter
Pp' p" +ip —
—~, = Q (p —p ) by recalling that it is fixed by allowing deformations
00
to
occur normal to the original surface. Specifically,
A numerical analysis of (37) shows that the maximum x(OQ) =pOQ+ y sinOQO'(OQ),
value of Reco occurs when two roots p; coincide. This
leads, in our case, to the condition y (OQ) =p ln COSOQ+ y cosOQo (OQ),
 29 GEOMETRICAL MODELS OF INTERFACE EVOLUTION 1341

where o(80) is the shift caused by y to the steady-state shape correction. These calculations are directly analo-
solution. Assuming 8=80+yp(Oo), we derive the two gous to standard results in the full solidification problem.
equations If these features are enough to give stable dendrite growth
at a selected velocity, our model should also exhibit this
pp(80) —1 sin280 —sin80cr(80), growth when simulated on the computer. If not, there
2p (43) may be additional features, crystalline anisotropy for ex-
—P SI8p
p(80)+ —ln cos80 — [cos(280 —1)] ample, which can be added to the local model, to then en-
1 1
cosep P 2p sure dendritic growth. Finally, it may be the case that
some feature of dendrites really depends on the global na-
= cos80cr(80) . ture of the self-coupling of the interface via the heat dif-
These equations then determine the new shape, as given by fusion field. This work is in progress and we hope to
o(80). If one wishes, one can then try to take o.(80) into know the answer soon.
account in the previous stability analysis. Since its effect We also showed that the steady-state solutions actually
is only to change the quantitative result for y', we have cease to exist at finite y. This would a priori seem to be a
not done this. real distinction between our system and the true solidifica-
The above perturbative treatment seems to show that a tion equations. However, there is no evidence that these
full family of solutions continues to exist at finite y. solutions do exist in the full solidification system also.
However, this turns out to be illusory and nonperturba- Claims to this effect in the literature ' fail to take into ac-
tively and the solution breaks down. The simplest way to count the existence of sidebranching modes which in fact
see this is to use the definition are the most important excitation in the system. The
whole question of existence may be irrelevant, anyway,
K since the steady-state solutions act only as a starting point
E=
Bs for deriving the behavior of the modes of (29). If this is
to write the steady-state equation as the case though, we need to reinterpret the marginal sta-
bility hypothesis of Langer and Muller-Krumbhaar'5 to
e
(cosO —
1 refer to stability around the asymptotic y=O solution.
K) . (44)
Bs This may affect the way in which the system approaches
If we supplement this by the relation a=88/Bs, the the unique operating velocity. These issues will be dis-
steady-state equation can be thought of as a nonlinear cussed in detail elsewhere.
dynamical system autonomous in the arclength s. The
points @=a=0, 8=+m/2 are critical points of this sys- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tem. Near 8= — m. /2, linear excursions lead to the stabili-
We would like to thank J. Langer for communicating to
ty matrix [in the variables (n /2+O, ~, e)] us several results prior to publication, and we ac-
knowledge useful discussions with E. Ben-Jacob and N.
Goldenfeld.

APPENDIX
We wish to derive the equation for small deformations
of a surface translating at constant velocity, and in partic-
with eigenvalues co satisfying
ular show that the equation involves only the component
2 1 of deformation along the normal. The unperturbed sur-
N CO+ face is given as xo(t, o (t)) in a time-dependent parametri-
y y
zation, has normal n and tangents w =Bxo/Bo, and sat-
which for small y approach +1, —1/2+i /v y. Two tra- isfies
jectories spiral into the fixed point and only one emerges.
Near 8=+m. /2, the exact opposite occurs two trajec- — dxp
=nU(v, ),
tories leave the fixed point and only one is attracted. dt
Since a dendrite is a solution which must go from the
8= — m/2 to 8=+ n. /2 fixed point, it will only exist if the
where the a, are the principal curvatures of the surface.
Consider the general displacement
single trajectory emerging is the exact same one that is at-
tracted at the other side. For arbitrary y, there is no x = xp+ pl6+ v~E' (A2)
reason for this to occur and a numerical integration shows
that this match fails to occur by an amount proportional The normal component of the time derivative of x is
— const/y

Let us summarize our study of dendritic structure. We x =n dxo +.5+(Bg)o ~+@ o ~n .

n d~7. (A3)
have shown analytic results regarding a family of y=o dt dt
dendrites, a marginal stability point and a steady-state where 5 is taken at fixed o. . While the normal shifts by
1342 BROWER, KESSLER, KOPLIK, AND LEVINE 29

term 0
(e ra), this makes no contribution to (A3) to lead- Now we equate this to the perturbed U
ing order because of (Al). If the unperturbed curve aU(~. )
translates with velocity vp then Bxp/Bt=vp, and from U(tc, +5tc, )=U(tc, )+ 8Kb
(8 tcse +bstcs) (A7)
(Al)
dx where hycb is the change in curvature linear in y. Com-
0= r . = ra (vp+ rpo ~) parison of (A6) and (A7) yields the desired result
aU
or 5=
Ka
(S~.—H t'a. 5a~. ) (A8)

O~= —Vp W~ . (A4) and e has dropped out.

Writing (Al) as n. ( vp) = U(tc, ), differentiating with For our study of dendrites, an explicit form for the nor-
respect to o,
and using (13) we have mal perturbation in mean curvature is needed. If we let
x = xp+ n 5 and expand to first order in 5 we find
p C)U ~Ka
Rap 7 vp (A5)
Blc Qg
Astc = —,'[g ~(a—.ap a, 5rr—
"c}."c}.x )+5h ~h tt] .
where h is the unperturbed curvature tensor. Defining H
to be the inverse of h (H ~hit& —5&), and using (Al), (A4), (A9)
and (A5), we can rewrite (A3) as

n = U(a., )+5 —(H ~BQ —d') —Bate, . It is easy to verify that for the case considered in the text,
BK~ this set of equations reduces to (31) and (33).

For a review, see J. S. Langer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 1 (1980).
For an introduction to this topic see A. E. Scheidigger, The
Physics of Flow in Porous Media (University of Toronto Press,
Toronto, 1974).
G. I. Sivashinsky, Acta Astronantica 4, 1177 (1977).
4G. F. Oster, in Proceedings of the Los Alamos Conference on
Fronts, Interfaces and Patterns [Physica D (to be published}].
5E. Overman and N. Zabusky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1693 (1980);
G. Trygvasson and H. Aref, Numerical Studies of an Inter-
face in a Hele-Shaw Cell (unpublished).
J. Koplik, D. Wilkinson, and J. F. Willemsen, Percolation and
Capillary Fluid Displacement, Schlumberger-Doll Research
Center, Ridgefield, unpublished.
7P. G. Saffman and G. I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
245, 312 (1958); R. L. Chuoke, P. van Meurs, and C. van der
Poel, Petrol. Trans. AIME 216, 188 (1959).
J. B. Smith, J. Comput. Phys. 39, 112 (1981); R. Brower, D.
Kessler, and H. Levine (unpublished).
9L. P. Eisenhart, An Introduction to Differential Geometry
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1947).
R. C. Brower, D. A. Kessler, J. Koplik, and H. Levine, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 51, 1111 (1983).
W. W. Mullins and R. F. Sekerka, J. Appl. Phys.
(1964).
H. Muller-Krumbhaar, T. W. Burkhardt, and D. Kroll, J.
Cryst. Growth 38, 13 (1977).
i3K. Brakke, The Motion of a Surface by its Mean Curvature
(Princeton University Press, Princeton N. J., 1978).
~4E. Ben-Jacob, N. Goldenfeld, J. S. Langer, and G. Schon,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1930 (1983).
~5U. Nakaya, Snow Crystals (Harvard University Press, Cam-
bridge, Mass. , 1954).
J. S. Langer and H. Muller-Krumbhaar, Acta Metall. 26,
1681 (1978); 26, 1689 (1978); 26, 1697 (1978).
S. C. Huang and M. E. Glicksman, Acta. Metall. 29, 701
(1981); 29, 717 (1981).
8G. Dee and J. S. Langer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 383 (1983).
J. S. Langer and H. Muller Krumbhaar, Phys. Rev. A 27, 499
(1983).
This possibility was first suggested by J. S. Langer (private
communication).
G. E. Nash and M. E. Glicksman, Acta Metall. 22, 1283
(1974).
22R. G. Brower, D. Kessler, J. Koplik, and H. Levine (unpub-
lished).
35, 444