ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/stokes/stokes.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing stokes/stokes.tex (file contents):
Revision 3780 by skuang, Sun Dec 11 03:22:47 2011 UTC vs.
Revision 3784 by skuang, Mon Dec 12 23:39:21 2011 UTC

# Line 128 | Line 128 | Similar to the NIVS methodology,\cite{kuang:164101} we
128   interfaces.
129  
130   \section{Methodology}
131 < Similar to the NIVS methodology,\cite{kuang:164101} we consider a
131 > Similar to the NIVS method,\cite{kuang:164101} we consider a
132   periodic system divided into a series of slabs along a certain axis
133   (e.g. $z$). The unphysical thermal and/or momentum flux is designated
134 < from the center slab to one of the end slabs, and thus the center slab
135 < would have a lower temperature than the end slab (unless the thermal
136 < flux is negative). Therefore, the center slab is denoted as ``$c$''
137 < while the end slab as ``$h$''.
134 > from the center slab to one of the end slabs, and thus the thermal
135 > flux results in a lower temperature of the center slab than the end
136 > slab, and the momentum flux results in negative center slab momentum
137 > with positive end slab momentum (unless these fluxes are set
138 > negative). Therefore, the center slab is denoted as ``$c$'', while the
139 > end slab as ``$h$''.
140  
141 < To impose these fluxes, we periodically apply separate operations to
142 < velocities of particles {$i$} within the center slab and of particles
143 < {$j$} within the end slab:
141 > To impose these fluxes, we periodically apply different set of
142 > operations on velocities of particles {$i$} within the center slab and
143 > those of particles {$j$} within the end slab:
144   \begin{eqnarray}
145   \vec{v}_i & \leftarrow & c\cdot\left(\vec{v}_i - \langle\vec{v}_c
146    \rangle\right) + \left(\langle\vec{v}_c\rangle + \vec{a}_c\right) \\
# Line 147 | Line 149 | before an operation occurs. When a momentum flux $\vec
149   \end{eqnarray}
150   where $\langle\vec{v}_c\rangle$ and $\langle\vec{v}_h\rangle$ denotes
151   the instantaneous bulk velocity of slabs $c$ and $h$ respectively
152 < before an operation occurs. When a momentum flux $\vec{j}_z(\vec{p})$
152 > before an operation is applied. When a momentum flux $\vec{j}_z(\vec{p})$
153   presents, these bulk velocities would have a corresponding change
154   ($\vec{a}_c$ and $\vec{a}_h$ respectively) according to Newton's
155   second law:
# Line 155 | Line 157 | where
157   M_c \vec{a}_c & = & -\vec{j}_z(\vec{p}) \Delta t \\
158   M_h \vec{a}_h & = &  \vec{j}_z(\vec{p}) \Delta t
159   \end{eqnarray}
160 < where
160 > where $M$ denotes total mass of particles within a slab:
161   \begin{eqnarray}
162   M_c & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N_c} m_i \\
163   M_h & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j
164   \end{eqnarray}
165 < and $\Delta t$ is the interval between two operations.
165 > and $\Delta t$ is the interval between two separate operations.
166  
167 < The above operations conserve the linear momentum of a periodic
168 < system. To satisfy total energy conservation as well as to impose a
169 < thermal flux $J_z$, one would have
170 < [SUPPORT INFO MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO PUT EXTRA MATH IN]
167 > The above operations already conserve the linear momentum of a
168 > periodic system. To further satisfy total energy conservation as well
169 > as to impose the thermal flux $J_z$, the following equations are
170 > included as well:
171 > [MAY PUT EXTRA MATH IN SUPPORT INFO OR APPENDIX]
172   \begin{eqnarray}
173   K_c - J_z\Delta t & = & c^2 (K_c - \frac{1}{2}M_c \langle\vec{v}_c
174   \rangle^2) + \frac{1}{2}M_c (\langle \vec{v}_c \rangle + \vec{a}_c)^2 \\
# Line 173 | Line 176 | $c$ and $h$ respectively before an operation occurs. T
176   \rangle^2) + \frac{1}{2}M_h (\langle \vec{v}_h \rangle + \vec{a}_h)^2
177   \end{eqnarray}
178   where $K_c$ and $K_h$ denotes translational kinetic energy of slabs
179 < $c$ and $h$ respectively before an operation occurs. These
179 > $c$ and $h$ respectively before an operation is applied. These
180   translational kinetic energy conservation equations are sufficient to
181 < ensure total energy conservation, as the operations applied do not
182 < change the potential energy of a system, given that the potential
181 > ensure total energy conservation, as the operations applied in our
182 > method do not change the kinetic energy related to other degrees of
183 > freedom or the potential energy of a system, given that its potential
184   energy does not depend on particle velocity.
185  
186   The above sets of equations are sufficient to determine the velocity
187   scaling coefficients ($c$ and $h$) as well as $\vec{a}_c$ and
188 < $\vec{a}_h$. Note that two roots of $c$ and $h$ exist
189 < respectively. However, to avoid dramatic perturbations to a system,
190 < the positive roots (which are closer to 1) are chosen. Figure
191 < \ref{method} illustrates the implementation of this algorithm in an
192 < individual step.
188 > $\vec{a}_h$. Note that there are two roots respectively for $c$ and
189 > $h$. However, the positive roots (which are closer to 1) are chosen so
190 > that the perturbations to a system can be reduced to a minimum. Figure
191 > \ref{method} illustrates the implementation sketch of this algorithm
192 > in an individual step.
193  
194   \begin{figure}
195   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{method}
196   \caption{Illustration of the implementation of the algorithm in a
197    single step. Starting from an ideal velocity distribution, the
198 <  transformation is used to apply both thermal and momentum flux from
199 <  the ``c'' slab to the ``h'' slab. As the figure shows, the thermal
200 <  distributions preserve after this operation.}
198 >  transformation is used to apply the effect of both a thermal and a
199 >  momentum flux from the ``c'' slab to the ``h'' slab. As the figure
200 >  shows, thermal distributions can preserve after this operation.}
201   \label{method}
202   \end{figure}
203  
# Line 201 | Line 205 | This approach is more computationaly efficient compare
205   thermal and/or momentum flux can be applied and the corresponding
206   temperature and/or momentum gradients can be established.
207  
208 < This approach is more computationaly efficient compared to the
209 < previous NIVS method, in that only quadratic equations are involved,
210 < while the NIVS method needs to solve a quartic equations. Furthermore,
211 < the method implements isotropic scaling of velocities in respective
212 < slabs, unlike the NIVS, where an extra criteria function is necessary
213 < to choose a set of coefficients that performs the most isotropic
214 < scaling. More importantly, separating the momentum flux imposing from
215 < velocity scaling avoids the underlying cause that NIVS produced
216 < thermal anisotropy when applying a momentum flux.
208 > Compared to the previous NIVS method, this approach is computationally
209 > more efficient in that only quadratic equations are involved to
210 > determine a set of scaling coefficients, while the NIVS method needs
211 > to solve quartic equations. Furthermore, this method implements
212 > isotropic scaling of velocities in respective slabs, unlike the NIVS,
213 > where an extra criteria function is necessary to choose a set of
214 > coefficients that performs a scaling as isotropic as possible. More
215 > importantly, separating the means of momentum flux imposing from
216 > velocity scaling avoids the underlying cause to thermal anisotropy in
217 > NIVS when applying a momentum flux. And later sections will
218 > demonstrate that this can improve the performance in shear viscosity
219 > simulations.
220  
221 < The advantages of the approach over the original momentum swapping
222 < approach lies in its nature to preserve a Gaussian
223 < distribution. Because the momentum swapping tends to render a
224 < nonthermal distribution, when the imposed flux is relatively large,
225 < diffusion of the neighboring slabs could no longer remedy this effect,
226 < and nonthermal distributions would be observed. Results in later
227 < section will illustrate this effect.
221 > The advantages of this approach over the original momentum swapping
222 > one lies in its nature of preserve a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution
223 > (mathimatically a Gaussian function). However, because the momentum
224 > swapping steps tend to result in a nonthermal distribution, when an
225 > imposed flux is relatively large, diffusions from the neighboring
226 > slabs could no longer remedy this effect, problematic distributions
227 > would be observed. Results in later section will illustrate this
228 > effect in more detail.
229  
230   \section{Computational Details}
231   The algorithm has been implemented in our MD simulation code,
232   OpenMD\cite{Meineke:2005gd,openmd}. We compare the method with
233 < previous RNEMD methods or equilibrium MD methods in homogeneous fluids
233 > previous RNEMD methods or equilibrium MD (EMD) methods in homogeneous fluids
234   (Lennard-Jones and SPC/E water). And taking advantage of the method,
235   we simulate the interfacial friction of different heterogeneous
236   interfaces (gold-organic solvent and gold-SPC/E water and ice-liquid
237   water).
238  
239   \subsection{Simulation Protocols}
240 < The systems to be investigated are set up in a orthorhombic simulation
241 < cell with periodic boundary conditions in all three dimensions. The
242 < $z$ axis of these cells were longer and was set as the gradient axis
243 < of temperature and/or momentum. Thus the cells were divided into $N$
244 < slabs along this axis, with various $N$ depending on individual
245 < system. The $x$ and $y$ axis were usually of the same length in
246 < homogeneous systems or close to each other where interfaces
247 < presents. In all cases, before introducing a nonequilibrium method to
248 < establish steady thermal and/or momentum gradients for further
249 < measurements and calculations, canonical ensemble with a Nos\'e-Hoover
250 < thermostat\cite{hoover85} and microcanonical ensemble equilibrations
251 < were used to prepare systems ready for data
252 < collections. Isobaric-isothermal equilibrations are performed before
253 < this for SPC/E water systems to reach normal pressure (1 bar), while
254 < similar equilibrations are used for interfacial systems to relax the
255 < surface tensions.
240 > The systems to be investigated are set up in orthorhombic simulation
241 > cells with periodic boundary conditions in all three dimensions. The
242 > $z$ axis of these cells were longer and set as the temperature and/or
243 > momentum gradient axis. And the cells were evenly divided into $N$
244 > slabs along this axis, with various $N$ depending on individual
245 > system. The $x$ and $y$ axis were of the same length in homogeneous
246 > systems or had length scale close to each other where heterogeneous
247 > interfaces presents. In all cases, before introducing a nonequilibrium
248 > method to establish steady thermal and/or momentum gradients for
249 > further measurements and calculations, canonical ensemble with a
250 > Nos\'e-Hoover thermostat\cite{hoover85} and microcanonical ensemble
251 > equilibrations were used before data collections. For SPC/E water
252 > simulations, isobaric-isothermal equilibrations\cite{melchionna93} are
253 > performed before the above to reach normal pressure (1 bar); for
254 > interfacial systems, similar equilibrations are used to relax the
255 > surface tensions of the $xy$ plane.
256  
257 < While homogeneous fluid systems can be set up with random
258 < configurations, our interfacial systems needs extra steps to ensure
259 < the interfaces be established properly for computations. The
257 > While homogeneous fluid systems can be set up with rather random
258 > configurations, our interfacial systems needs a series of steps to
259 > ensure the interfaces be established properly for computations. The
260   preparation and equilibration of butanethiol covered gold (111)
261   surface and further solvation and equilibration process is described
262 < as in reference \cite{kuang:AuThl}.
262 > in details as in reference \cite{kuang:AuThl}.
263  
264   As for the ice/liquid water interfaces, the basal surface of ice
265   lattice was first constructed. Hirsch {\it et
266    al.}\cite{doi:10.1021/jp048434u} explored the energetics of ice
267 < lattices with different proton orders. We refer to their results and
268 < choose the configuration of the lowest energy after geometry
269 < optimization as the unit cells of our ice lattices. Although
270 < experimental solid/liquid coexistant temperature near normal pressure
271 < is 273K, Bryk and Haymet's simulations of ice/liquid water interfaces
272 < with different models suggest that for SPC/E, the most stable
273 < interface is observed at 225$\pm$5K. Therefore, all our ice/liquid
274 < water simulations were carried out under 225K. To have extra
275 < protection of the ice lattice during initial equilibration (when the
276 < randomly generated liquid phase configuration could release large
277 < amount of energy in relaxation), a constraint method (REF?) was
278 < adopted until the high energy configuration was relaxed.
279 < [MAY ADD A FIGURE HERE FOR BASAL PLANE, MAY INCLUDE PRISM IF POSSIBLE]
267 > lattices with all possible proton order configurations. We refer to
268 > their results and choose the configuration of the lowest energy after
269 > geometry optimization as the unit cell for our ice lattices. Although
270 > experimental solid/liquid coexistant temperature under normal pressure
271 > should be close to 273K, Bryk and Haymet's simulations of ice/liquid
272 > water interfaces with different models suggest that for SPC/E, the
273 > most stable interface is observed at 225$\pm$5K.\cite{bryk:10258}
274 > Therefore, our ice/liquid water simulations were carried out at
275 > 225K. To have extra protection of the ice lattice during initial
276 > equilibration (when the randomly generated liquid phase configuration
277 > could release large amount of energy in relaxation), restraints were
278 > applied to the ice lattice to avoid inadvertent melting by the heat
279 > dissipated from the high enery configurations.
280 > [MAY ADD A SNAPSHOT FOR BASAL PLANE]
281  
282   \subsection{Force Field Parameters}
283   For comparison of our new method with previous work, we retain our
284 < force field parameters consistent with the results we will compare
285 < with. The Lennard-Jones fluid used here for argon , and reduced unit
286 < results are reported for direct comparison purpose.
284 > force field parameters consistent with previous simulations. Argon is
285 > the Lennard-Jones fluid used here, and its results are reported in
286 > reduced unit for direct comparison purpose.
287  
288   As for our water simulations, SPC/E model is used throughout this work
289   for consistency. Previous work for transport properties of SPC/E water
# Line 289 | Line 298 | The small organic molecules included in our simulation
298   Spohr potential was adopted\cite{ISI:000167766600035} to depict
299   Au-H$_2$O interactions.
300  
301 < The small organic molecules included in our simulations are the Au
302 < surface capping agent butanethiol and liquid hexane and toluene. The
303 < United-Atom
301 > For our gold/organic liquid interfaces, the small organic molecules
302 > included in our simulations are the Au surface capping agent
303 > butanethiol and liquid hexane and toluene. The United-Atom
304   models\cite{TraPPE-UA.thiols,TraPPE-UA.alkanes,TraPPE-UA.alkylbenzenes}
305   for these components were used in this work for better computational
306   efficiency, while maintaining good accuracy. We refer readers to our
# Line 319 | Line 328 | two in the denominator is present for the heat transpo
328   \end{equation}
329   where $L_x$ and $L_y$ denotes the dimensions of the plane in a
330   simulation cell perpendicular to the thermal gradient, and a factor of
331 < two in the denominator is present for the heat transport occurs in
332 < both $+z$ and $-z$ directions. The temperature gradient
331 > two in the denominator is necessary for the heat transport occurs in
332 > both $+z$ and $-z$ directions. The average temperature gradient
333   ${\langle\partial T/\partial z\rangle}$ can be obtained by a linear
334   regression of the temperature profile, which is recorded during a
335   simulation for each slab in a cell. For Lennard-Jones simulations,
# Line 329 | Line 338 | by switching off $J_z$. One can specify the vector
338  
339   \subsection{Shear viscosities}
340   Alternatively, the method can carry out shear viscosity calculations
341 < by switching off $J_z$. One can specify the vector
342 < $\vec{j}_z(\vec{p})$ by choosing the three components
341 > by specify a momentum flux. In our algorithm, one can specify the
342 > three components of the flux vector $\vec{j}_z(\vec{p})$
343   respectively. For shear viscosity simulations, $j_z(p_z)$ is usually
344 < set to zero. Although for isotropic systems, the direction of
345 < $\vec{j}_z(\vec{p})$ on the $xy$ plane should not matter, the ability
346 < of arbitarily specifying the vector direction in our method provides
347 < convenience in anisotropic simulations.
344 > set to zero. For isotropic systems, the direction of
345 > $\vec{j}_z(\vec{p})$ on the $xy$ plane should not matter, but the
346 > ability of arbitarily specifying the vector direction in our method
347 > could provide convenience in anisotropic simulations.
348  
349 < Similar to thermal conductivity computations, linear response of the
350 < momentum gradient with respect to the shear stress is assumed, and the
351 < shear viscosity ($\eta$) can be obtained with the imposed momentum
352 < flux (e.g. in $x$ direction) and the measured gradient:
349 > Similar to thermal conductivity computations, for a homogeneous
350 > system, linear response of the momentum gradient with respect to the
351 > shear stress is assumed, and the shear viscosity ($\eta$) can be
352 > obtained with the imposed momentum flux (e.g. in $x$ direction) and
353 > the measured gradient:
354   \begin{equation}
355   j_z(p_x) = -\eta \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial z}
356   \end{equation}
# Line 349 | Line 359 | the data collection time. Also, the velocity gradient
359   j_z(p_x) = \frac{P_x}{2 t L_x L_y}
360   \end{equation}
361   with $P_x$ being the total non-physical momentum transferred within
362 < the data collection time. Also, the velocity gradient
362 > the data collection time. Also, the averaged velocity gradient
363   ${\langle\partial v_x/\partial z\rangle}$ can be obtained using linear
364 < regression of the $x$ component of the mean velocity, $\langle
365 < v_x\rangle$, in each of the bins. For Lennard-Jones simulations, shear
366 < viscosities are reported in reduced units
364 > regression of the $x$ component of the mean velocity ($\langle
365 > v_x\rangle$) in each of the bins. For Lennard-Jones simulations, shear
366 > viscosities are also reported in reduced units
367   (${\eta^*=\eta\sigma^2(\varepsilon m)^{-1/2}}$).
368 +
369 + [COMBINE JZKE W JZPX]
370  
371   \subsection{Interfacial friction and Slip length}
372   While the shear stress results in a velocity gradient within bulk
# Line 428 | Line 440 | calculations with various fluxes in reduced units.
440          \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\eta^*$} \\
441          \hline
442          Swap Interval $t^*$ & Equivalent $J_z^*$ or $j_z^*(p_x)$ &
443 <        NIVS & This work & Swapping & This work \\
443 >        NIVS\footnote{Reference \cite{kuang:164101}.} & This work &
444 >        Swapping & This work \\
445          \hline
446          0.116 & 0.16  & 7.30(0.10) & 6.25(0.23) & 3.57(0.06) & 3.53(0.16)\\
447          0.232 & 0.09  & 6.95(0.09) & 8.02(0.56) & 3.64(0.05) & 3.43(0.17)\\

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines