ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/iceWater2/iceWater2.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/iceWater2/iceWater2.tex (file contents):
Revision 4219 by plouden, Fri Sep 12 20:59:54 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4232 by plouden, Mon Dec 8 17:07:27 2014 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1 < % ****** Start of file aipsamp.tex ******
2 < %
3 < %   This file is part of the AIP files in the AIP distribution for REVTeX 4.
4 < %   Version 4.1 of REVTeX, October 2009
5 < %
6 < %   Copyright (c) 2009 American Institute of Physics.
7 < %
8 < %   See the AIP README file for restrictions and more information.
9 < %
10 < % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
11 < % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.1
12 < %
13 < % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
14 < %
15 < %  1)  latex  aipsamp
16 < %  2)  bibtex aipsamp
17 < %  3)  latex  aipsamp
18 < %  4)  latex  aipsamp
19 < %
20 < % Use this file as a source of example code for your aip document.
21 < % Use the file aiptemplate.tex as a template for your document.
22 < \documentclass[%
23 < aip,jcp,
24 < amsmath,amssymb,
25 < preprint,%
26 < % reprint,%
27 < %author-year,%
28 < %author-numerical,%
29 < jcp]{revtex4-1}
30 <
31 < \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
32 < \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
33 < %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
34 < \usepackage{times}
35 < \usepackage[version=3]{mhchem}  % this is a great package for formatting chemical reactions
36 < \usepackage{url}
37 <
38 < \begin{document}
39 <
40 < \title{Friction at Water / Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ interfaces: Do the
41 <  Facets of Ice Have Different Hydrophilicity?}
42 <
43 < \author{Patrick B. Louden}
44 <
45 < \author{J. Daniel Gezelter}
46 < \email{gezelter@nd.edu.}
47 < \affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University
48 < of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
49 <
50 < \date{\today}
51 <
52 < \begin{abstract}
53 < Abstract abstract abstract...
54 < \end{abstract}
55 <
56 < \maketitle
57 <
58 < \section{Introduction}
59 < Explain a little bit about ice Ih, point group stuff.
60 <
61 < Mention previous work done / on going work by other people. Haymet and Rick
62 < seem to be investigating how the interfaces is perturbed by the presence of
63 < ions. This is the conlcusion of a recent publication of the basal and
64 < prismatic facets of ice Ih, now presenting the pyramidal and secondary
65 < prism facets under shear.
66 <
67 < \section{Methodology}
68 <
69 < \begin{figure}
70 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SP_comic_strip}
71 < \caption{\label{fig:spComic} The secondary prism interface with a shear
72 < rate of 3.5 ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Lower panel: the local tetrahedral order
73 < parameter, $q(z)$, (black circles) and the hyperbolic tangent fit (red line).
74 < Middle panel: the imposed thermal gradient required to maintain a fixed
75 < interfacial temperature. Upper panel: the transverse velocity gradient that
76 < develops in response to an imposed momentum flux. The vertical dotted lines
77 < indicate the locations of the midpoints of the two interfaces.}
78 < \end{figure}
79 <
80 < \begin{figure}
81 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr_comic_strip}
82 < \caption{\label{fig:pyrComic} The pyramidal interface with a shear rate of 3.8 \
83 < ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Panel descriptions match those in figure \ref{fig:spComic}.}
84 < \end{figure}
85 <
86 < \subsection{Pyramidal and secondary prism system construction}
87 <
88 < The construction of the pyramidal and secondary prism systems follows that of
89 < the basal and prismatic systems presented elsewhere\cite{Louden13}, however
90 < the ice crystals and water boxes were equilibrated and combined at 50K
91 < instead of 225K. The ice / water systems generated were then equilibrated
92 < to 225K. The resulting pyramidal system was
93 < $37.47 \times 29.50 \times 93.02$ \AA\ with 1216
94 < SPC/E molecules in the ice slab, and 2203 in the liquid phase. The secondary
95 < prism system generated was $71.87 \times 31.66 \times 161.55$ \AA\ with 3840
96 < SPC/E molecules in the ice slab and 8176 molecules in the liquid phase.
97 <
98 < \subsection{Computational details}
99 < % Do we need to justify the sims at 225K?
100 < % No crystal growth or shrinkage over 2 successive 1 ns NVT simulations for
101 < %    either the pyramidal or sec. prism ice/water systems.
102 <
103 < The computational details performed here were equivalent to those reported
104 < in the previous publication\cite{Louden13}. The only changes made to the
105 < previously reported procedure were the following. VSS-RNEMD moves were
106 < attempted every 2 fs instead of every 50 fs. This was done to minimize
107 < the magnitude of each individual VSS-RNEMD perturbation to the system.
108 <
109 < All pyramidal simulations were performed under the NVT ensamble except those
110 < during which statistics were accumulated for the orientational correlation
111 < function, which were performed under the NVE ensamble. All secondary prism
112 < simulations were performed under the NVE ensamble.
113 <
114 < \section{Results and discussion}
115 < \subsection{Interfacial width}
116 < In the literature there is good agreement that between the solid ice and
117 < the bulk water, there exists a region of 'slush-like' water molecules.
118 < In this region, the water molecules are structurely distinguishable and
119 < behave differently than those of the solid ice or the bulk water.
120 < The characteristics of this region have been defined by both structural
121 < and dynamic properties; and its width has been measured by the change of these
122 < properties from their bulk liquid values to those of the solid ice.
123 < Examples of these properties include the density, the diffusion constant, and
124 < the translational order profile. \cite{Bryk02,Karim90,Gay02,Hayward01,Hayward02,Karim88}  
125 <
126 < Since the VSS-RNEMD moves used to impose the thermal and velocity gradients
127 < perturb the momenta of the water molecules in
128 < the systems, parameters that depend on translational motion may give
129 < faulty results. A stuructural parameter will be less effected by the
130 < VSS-RNEMD perturbations to the system. Due to this, we have used the
131 < local order tetrahedral parameter to quantify the width of the interface,
132 < which was originally described by Kumar\cite{Kumar09} and
133 < Errington\cite{Errington01} and explained in our
134 < previous publication\cite{Louden13} in relation to an ice/water system.
135 <
136 < Paragraph and eq. for tetrahedrality here.
137 <
138 < To determine the width of the interfaces, each of the systems were
139 < divided into 100 artificial bins along the
140 < $z$-dimension, and the local tetrahedral order parameter, $q(z)$, was
141 < time-averaged for each of the bins, resulting in a tetrahedrality profile of
142 < the system. These profiles are shown across the $z$-dimension of the systems
143 < in panel $a$ of Figures \ref{fig:spComic}
144 < and \ref{fig:pyrComic} (black circles). The $q(z)$ function has a range of
145 < (0,1), where a larger value indicates a more tetrahedral environment.
146 < The $q(z)$ for the bulk liquid was found to be $\approx $ 0.77, while values of
147 < $\approx $0.92 were more common for the ice. The tetrahedrality profiles were
148 < fit using a hyperbolic tangent\cite{Louden13} designed to smoothly fit the
149 < bulk to ice
150 < transition, while accounting for the thermal influence on the profile by the
151 < kinetic energy exchanges of the VSS-RNEMD moves. In panels $b$ and $c$, the
152 < imposed thermal and velocity gradients can be seen. The verticle dotted
153 < lines traversing all three panels indicate the midpoints of the interface
154 < as determined by the hyperbolic tangent fit of the tetrahedrality profiles.
155 <
156 < From fitting the tetrahedrality profiles for each of the 0.5 nanosecond
157 < simulations (panel c of Figures \ref{fig:spComic} and \ref{fig:pyrComic})
158 < by Eq. 6\cite{Louden13},we find the interfacial width to be
159 < $3.2 \pm 0.2$ and $3.2 \pm 0.2$ \AA\ for the control system with no applied
160 < momentum flux for both the pyramidal and secondary prism systems.
161 < Over the range of shear rates investigated,
162 < $0.6 \pm 0.2 \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 5.6 \pm 0.4 \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for
163 < the pyramidal system and $0.9 \pm 0.3 \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 5.4 \pm 0.1
164 < \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the secondary prism, we found no significant change in
165 < the interfacial width. This follows our previous findings of the basal and
166 < prismatic systems, in which the interfacial width was invarient of the
167 < shear rate of the ice. The interfacial width of the quiescent basal and
168 < prismatic systems was found to be $3.2 \pm 0.4$ \AA\ and $3.6 \pm 0.2$ \AA\
169 < respectively. Over the range of shear rates investigated, $0.6 \pm 0.3
170 < \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 5.3 \pm 0.5 \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the basal
171 < system and $0.9 \pm 0.2 \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 4.5 \pm 0.1
172 < \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the prismatic.
173 <
174 < These results indicate that the surface structure of the exposed ice crystal
175 < has little to no effect on how far into the bulk the ice-like structural
176 < ordering is. Also, it appears that the interface is not structurally effected
177 < by shearing the ice through water.
178 <
179 <
180 < \subsection{Orientational dynamics}
181 < %Should we include the math here?
182 < The orientational time correlation function,
183 < \begin{equation}\label{C(t)1}
184 <  C_{2}(t)=\langle P_{2}(\mathbf{u}(0)\cdot \mathbf{u}(t))\rangle,
185 < \end{equation}
186 < helps indicate the local environment around the water molecules. The function
187 < begins with an initial value of unity, and decays to zero as the water molecule
188 < loses memory of its former orientation. Observing the rate at which this decay
189 < occurs can provide insight to the mechanism and timescales for the relaxation.
190 < In eq. \eqref{C(t)1}, $P_{2}$ is the second-order Legendre polynomial, and
191 < $\mathbf{u}$ is the the bisecting HOH vector. The angle brackets indicate
192 < an ensemble average over all the water molecules in a given spatial region.
193 <
194 < To investigate the dynamics of the water molecules across the interface, the
195 < systems were divided in the $z$-dimension into bins, each $\approx$ 3 \AA\
196 < wide, and \eqref{C(t)1} was computed for each of the bins. A water
197 < molecule was allocated to a particular bin if it was initially in the bin
198 < at time zero. To compute \eqref{C(t)1}, each 0.5 ns simulation was followed
199 < by an additional 200 ps microcanonical (NVE) simulation during which the
200 < position and orientations of each molecule were recorded every 0.1 ps.
201 <
202 < The data obtained for each bin was then fit to a triexponential decay given by
203 < \begin{equation}\label{C(t)_fit}
204 < C_{2}(t) \approx a e^{-t/\tau_\mathrm{short}} + b e^{-t/\tau_\mathrm{middle}} +\
205 < c
206 < e^{-t/\tau_\mathrm{long}} + (1-a-b-c)
207 < \end{equation}
208 < where $\tau_{short}$ corresponds to the librational motion of the water  
209 < molecules, $\tau_{middle}$ corresponds to jumps between the breaking and
210 < making of hydrogen bonds, and $\tau_{long}$ corresponds to the translational
211 < motion of the water molecules. The last term in \eqref{C(t)_fit} accounts
212 < for the water molecules trapped in the ice which do not experience any
213 < long-time orientational decay.
214 <
215 < In Figures \ref{fig:PyrOrient} and \ref{fig:SPorient} we see the $z$-coordinate
216 < profiles for the three decay constants, $\tau_{short}$ (panel a),
217 < $\tau_{middle}$ (panel b),
218 < and $\tau_{long}$ (panel c) for the pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems
219 < respectively. The control experiments (no shear) are shown in black, and
220 < an experiment with an imposed momentum flux is shown in red. The vertical
221 < dotted line traversing all three panels denotes the midpoint of the
222 < interface as determined by the local tetrahedral order parameter fitting.
223 < In the liquid regions of both systems, we see that $\tau_{middle}$ and
224 < $\tau_{long}$ have approximately consistent values of $3-6$ ps and $30-40$ ps,
225 < resepctively, and increase in value as we approach the interface. Conversely,
226 < in panel a, we see that $\tau_{short}$ decreases from the liquid value
227 < of $72-76$ fs as we approach the interface. We believe this speed up is due to
228 < the constrained motion of librations closer to the interface. Both the
229 < approximate values for the decays and relative trends  match those reported
230 < previously for the basal and prismatic interfaces.
231 <
232 < As done previously, we have attempted to quantify the distance, $d_{pyramidal}$
233 < and $d_{secondary prism}$, from the
234 < interface that the deviations from the bulk liquid values begin. This was done
235 < by fitting the orientational decay constant $z$-profiles by
236 < \begin{equation}\label{tauFit}
237 < \tau(z)\approx\tau_{liquid}+(\tau_{solid}-\tau_{liquid})e^{-(z-z_{wall})/d}
238 < \end{equation}
239 < where $\tau_{liquid}$ and $\tau_{solid}$ are the liquid and projected solid
240 < values of the decay constants, $z_{wall}$ is the location of the interface,
241 < and $d$ is the displacement from the interface at which these deviations
242 < occur. The values for $d_{pyramidal}$ and $d_{secondary prismatic}$ were
243 < determined
244 < for each of the decay constants, and then averaged for better statistics
245 < ($\tau_{middle}$ was ommitted for secondary prism). For the pyramidal system,
246 < $d_{pyramidal}$ was found to be 2.7 \AA\ for both the control and the sheared
247 < system. We found $d_{secondary prismatic}$ to be slightly larger than
248 < $d_{pyramidal}$ for both the control and with an applied shear, with
249 < displacements of $4$ \AA\ for the control system and $3$ \AA\ for the
250 < experiment with the imposed momentum flux. These values are consistent with
251 < those found for the basal ($d_{basal}\approx2.9$ \AA\ ) and prismatic
252 < ($d_{prismatic}\approx3.5$ \AA\ ) systems.
253 <
254 < \subsection{Coefficient of friction of the interfaces}
255 < While investigating the kinetic coefficient of friction for the larger
256 < prismatic system, there was found to be a dependence for $\mu_k$
257 < on the temperature of the liquid water in the system. We believe this
258 < dependence
259 < arrises from the sharp discontinuity of the viscosity for the SPC/E model
260 < at temperatures approaching 200 K\cite{kuang12}. Due to this, we propose
261 < a weighting to the structural interfacial parameter, $\kappa$ by the
262 < viscosity at $225$ K, the temperature of the interface. $\kappa$ is
263 < traditionally defined as
264 < \begin{equation}\label{kappa}
265 < \kappa = \eta/\delta
266 < \end{equation}
267 < where $\eta$ is the viscosity and $\delta$ is the slip length.
268 < In our ice/water shearing simulations, the system has reached a steady state
269 < when the applied force,
270 <
271 < \begin{equation}
272 < f_{applied} = \mathbf{j}_z(\mathbf{p})L_x L_y
273 < \end{equation}
274 < is equal to the frictional force resisting the motion of the ice block
275 < \begin{equation}
276 < f_{friction} = \frac{\eta \mathbf{v} L_x L_y}{\delta}
277 < \end{equation}
278 < where $\mathbf{v}$ is the relative velocity of the liquid from the ice.
279 < When this condition is met, we are able to solve the resulting expression to
280 < obtain,
281 < \begin{equation}\label{force_equality}
282 < \frac{\eta}{\delta} = \frac{\mathbf{j}_z(\mathbf{p})}{\mathbf{v}}
283 < \end{equation}
284 < From \eqref{kappa}, \eqref{force_equality} becomes
285 < \begin{equation}
286 < \kappa = \frac{\mathbf{j}_z(\mathbf{p})}{\mathbf{v}}
287 < \end{equation}
288 < which we will multiply by a viscosity weighting term to reach
289 < \begin{equation} \label{kappa2}
290 < \kappa = \frac{\mathbf{j}_z(\mathbf{p})}{\mathbf{v}} \frac{\eta(225)}{\eta(T)}
291 < \end{equation}
292 < Assuming linear response theory is valid, an expression for ($\eta$) can
293 < be found from the imposed momentum flux and the measured velocity gradient.
294 < \begin{equation}\label{eta_eq}
295 < \eta = \frac{\mathbf{j}_z(\mathbf{p})}{\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial z}}
296 < \end{equation}
297 < Substituting eq \eqref{eta_eq} into eq \eqref{kappa2} we arrive at
298 < \begin{equation}
299 <  \kappa = \frac{\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial z}}{\mathbf{v}}\eta(225)
300 < \end{equation}
301 <
302 < \begin{table}[h]
303 < \centering
304 < \caption{$\kappa$ values for the basal, prismatic, pyramidal, and secondary    prismatic facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$}
305 < \label{tab:kappa}
306 < \begin{tabular}{|ccc|}  \hline
307 <           & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\kappa_{Drag direction}$} \\
308 < Interface & $\kappa_{x}$     & $\kappa_{y}$   \\ \hline
309 <     basal & $0.00059 \pm 0.00003$ & $0.00065 \pm 0.00008$ \\
310 < prismatic & $0.00030 \pm 0.00002$ & $0.00030 \pm 0.00001$ \\
311 < pyramidal & $0.00058 \pm 0.00004$ & $0.00061 \pm 0.00005$ \\
312 < secondary prism & $0.00035 \pm 0.00001$ & $0.00033 \pm 0.00002$ \\ \hline
313 < \end{tabular}
314 < \end{table}
315 <
316 <
317 < To obtain the value of $\eta(225)$ for the SPC/E model, a $31.09 \times 29.38
318 < \times 124.39$ \AA\ box with 3744 water molecules was equilibrated to 225K,
319 < and 5 unique shearing experiments were performed. Each experiment was
320 < conducted in the microcanonical ensemble (NVE) and were 5 ns in
321 < length. The VSS were attempted every timestep, which was set to 2 fs.
322 < For our SPC/E systems, we found $\eta(225)$  to be $0.0148 \pm 0.0007 Pa s$,
323 < roughly ten times larger than the value found for 280 K SPC/E water by
324 < Kuang\cite{kuang12}.
325 <
326 <
327 < \begin{table}[h]
328 < \centering
329 < \caption{Solid-liquid friction coefficients (measured in amu~fs\textsuperscript\
330 < {-1}). \\
331 < \textsuperscript{a} See ref. \onlinecite{Louden13}. }
332 < \label{tab:lambda}
333 < \begin{tabular}{|ccc|}  \hline
334 <           & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Drag direction} \\
335 < Interface & $x$               & $y$  \\ \hline
336 <     basal\textsuperscript{a} &  $0.08 \pm 0.02$  & $0.09 \pm 0.03$ \\
337 < prismatic (T = 225)\textsuperscript{a} & $0.037 \pm 0.008$ & $0.04 \pm 0.01$ \\
338 < prismatic (T = 230) & $0.10 \pm 0.01$ & $0.070 \pm 0.006$\\
339 < pyramidal & $0.13 \pm 0.03$   & $0.14 \pm 0.03$ \\
340 < secondary prism & $0.13 \pm 0.02$ & $0.12 \pm 0.03$ \\ \hline
341 < \end{tabular}
342 < \end{table}
343 <
344 <
345 < \begin{figure}
346 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr-orient}
347 < \caption{\label{fig:PyrOrient} The three decay constants of the
348 < orientational time correlation function, $C_2(t)$, for water as a function
349 < of distance from the center of the ice slab. The vertical dashed line
350 < indicates the edge of the pyramidal ice slab determined by the local order
351 < tetrahedral parameter. The control (black circles) and sheared (red squares)
352 < experiments were fit by a shifted exponential decay (Eq. 9\cite{Louden13})
353 < shown by the black and red lines respectively. The upper two panels show that
354 < translational and hydrogen bond making and breaking events slow down
355 < through the interface while approaching the ice slab. The bottom most panel
356 < shows the librational motion of the water molecules speeding up approaching
357 < the ice block due to the confined region of space allowed for the molecules
358 < to move in.}
359 < \end{figure}  
360 <
361 < \begin{figure}
362 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SP-orient-less}
363 < \caption{\label{fig:SPorient} Decay constants for $C_2(t)$ at the secondary
364 < prism face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig:PyrOrient}.}
365 < \end{figure}
366 <
367 <
368 <
369 < \section{Conclusion}
370 < Conclude conclude conclude...
371 <
372 <
373 < \begin{acknowledgments}
374 <  Support for this project was provided by the National
375 <  Science Foundation under grant CHE-1362211. Computational time was
376 <  provided by the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the
377 <  University of Notre Dame.
378 < \end{acknowledgments}
379 <
380 < \newpage
381 <
382 < \bibliography{iceWater}
383 <
384 < \end{document}
1 > %% PNAStwoS.tex
2 > %% Sample file to use for PNAS articles prepared in LaTeX
3 > %% For two column PNAS articles
4 > %% Version1: Apr 15, 2008
5 > %% Version2: Oct 04, 2013
6 >
7 > %% BASIC CLASS FILE
8 > \documentclass{pnastwo}
9 >
10 > %% ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL STYLE FILES Font specification
11 >
12 > %\usepackage{pnastwoF}
13 >
14 >
15 >
16 > %% OPTIONAL MACRO DEFINITIONS
17 > \def\s{\sigma}
18 > %%%%%%%%%%%%
19 > %% For PNAS Only:
20 > \url{www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0709640104}
21 > \copyrightyear{2008}
22 > \issuedate{Issue Date}
23 > \volume{Volume}
24 > \issuenumber{Issue Number}
25 > %\setcounter{page}{2687} %Set page number here if desired
26 > %%%%%%%%%%%%
27 >
28 > \begin{document}
29 >
30 > \title{Friction at Water / Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ interfaces: Do the
31 >  Different Facets of Ice Have Different Hydrophilicity?}
32 >
33 > \author{Patrick B. Louden
34 > \and
35 > J. Daniel Gezelter\affil{1}{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
36 > IN 46556}}
37 >
38 > \contributor{Submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
39 > of the United States of America}
40 >
41 > %%%Newly updated.
42 > %%% If significance statement need, then can use the below command otherwise just delete it.
43 > \significancetext{RJSM and ACAC developed the concept of the study. RJSM conducted the analysis, data interpretation and drafted the manuscript. AGB contributed to the development of the statistical methods, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript.}
44 >
45 > \maketitle
46 >
47 > \begin{article}
48 > \begin{abstract}
49 > {In this follow up paper of the basal and prismatic facets of the
50 > Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water interface, we present the
51 > pyramidal and secondary prismatic
52 > interfaces for both the quiescent and sheared systems. The structural and
53 > dynamic interfacial widths for all four crystal facets were found to be in good
54 > agreement, and were found to be independent of the shear rate over the shear
55 > rates investigated.
56 > Decomposition of the molecular orientational time correlation function showed
57 > different behavior for the short- and longer-time decay components approaching
58 > normal to the interface. Lastly we show through calculation of the interfacial
59 > friction coefficient that the basal and pyramidal facets are more
60 > hydrophilic than the prismatic and secondary prismatic facets.}
61 > \end{abstract}
62 >
63 > \keywords{ice|water|interface|contact angle|molecular dynamics}
64 >
65 > \abbreviations{QLL, quasi liquid layer; MD, molecular dynamics}
66 >
67 > %\dropcap{I}n this article we study the evolution of ``almost-sharp'' fronts
68 > %for the surface quasi-geostrophic equation. This 2-D active scalar
69 > %equation reads for the surface quasi-geostrophic equation.
70 > %\begin{equation}
71 > %\mfrac{D \theta}{Dt}=\mfrac{\pr \theta}{\pr t} + u\cdot \nabla
72 > %\theta=0 \label{qg1}
73 > %\end{equation}
74 >
75 > The Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water quiescent interface has been extensively studied
76 > over the past 30 years by theory and experiment. Haymet \emph{et al.} have
77 > done significant work characterizing and quantifying the width of these
78 > interfaces for the SPC,\cite{Karim90} SPC/E,\cite{Gay02,Bryk02},
79 > CF1,\cite{Hayward01,Hayward02} and TIP4P\cite{Karim88} models for water.\cite{Bryk04,Smith05,Wilson08,Wilson10} Nada and Furukawa have studied
80 > the the basal- and prismatic-water interface width\cite{Nada95} and crystal
81 > surface restructuring at temperatures approaching the melting
82 > point\cite{Nada00}.
83 >
84 > It is well known that the surface of ice exhibits a premelting layer at
85 > temperatures near the melting point, often called a quasi-liquid layer (QLL).
86 > Molecular dynamics simulations of the facets of ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ exposed
87 > to vacuum performed by Conde, Vega and Patrykiejew have found QLL widths of
88 > approximately 10 \AA\ at 3 K below the melting point\cite{Conde08}.
89 > Similarly, Limmer and Chandler have used course grain simulations and
90 > statistical field theory to estimated QLL widths at the same temperature to
91 > be about 3 nm\cite{Limmer14}.
92 > Recently, Sazaki and Furukawa have developed an experimental technique with
93 > sufficient spatial and temporal resolution to visulaize and quantitatively
94 > analyze QLLs on ice crystals at temperatures near melting\cite{Sazaki10}. They
95 > have found the width of the QLLs perpindicular to the surface  at -2.2$^{o}$C
96 > to be 3-4 \AA\ wide. They have also seen the formation of two immiscible
97 > QLLs, which displayed different stabilities and dynamics on the crystal
98 > surface\cite{Sazaki12}.
99 >
100 > There is significant interest in the properties of ice/ice and ice/water
101 > interfaces in the geophysics community. Most commonly, the results of shearing
102 > two ice blocks past one
103 > another\cite{Casassa91, Sukhorukov13, Pritchard12, Lishman13} or the shearing
104 > of ice through water\cite{Cuffey99, Bell08}. Using molecular dynamics
105 > simulations, Samadashvili has recently shown that when two smooth ice slabs
106 > slide past one another, a stable liquid-like layer develops between
107 > them\cite{Samadashvili13}. To fundamentally understand these processes, a
108 > molecular understanding of the ice/water interfaces is needed.    
109 > Investigation of the ice/water interface is also crucial in understanding
110 > processes such as nucleation, crystal
111 > growth,\cite{Han92, Granasy95, Vanfleet95} and crystal
112 > melting\cite{Weber83, Han92, Sakai96, Sakai96B}.
113 >  
114 > In a previous study\cite{Louden13}, we investigated
115 > the basal and prismatic facets of an ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water
116 > interface where the ice was sheared relative to the liquid. Using
117 > velocity shearing and scaling approach to reverse
118 > non-equilibrium molecular dynamics (VSS-RNEMD), simultaneous temperature and
119 > velocity gradients were applied to the system, allowing for measurment
120 > of friction and thermal transport properties while maintaining a stable
121 > interfacial temperature\cite{Kuang12}.
122 >
123 > Paragraph here about hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity, maybe move up
124 > more in the paper as well. Talk about physically what it means for a
125 > surface to by hydrophobic or hydrophilic, and then we move into
126 > how do we define it (mathematically) and then measure the degree
127 > of wetting experimentally and theoretically.
128 >
129 > The hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of a surface can be described by the
130 > extent a droplet of water wets the surface. The contact angle formed between
131 > the solid and the liquid, $\theta$, which relates the free energies of the
132 > three interfaces involved, is given by Young's equation.
133 > \begin{equation}\label{young}
134 > \cos\theta = (\gamma_{sv} - \gamma_{sl})/\gamma_{lv}
135 > \end{equation}
136 > Here $\gamma_{sv}$, $\gamma_{sl}$, and $\gamma_{lv}$ are the free energies
137 > of the solid/vapor, solid/liquid, and liquid/vapor interfaces respectively.
138 > Large contact angles ($\theta$ $\gg$ 90\textsuperscript{o}) correspond to low
139 > wettability and hydrophobic surfaces, while small contact angles
140 > ($\theta$ $\ll$ 90\textsuperscript{o}) correspond to high wettability and
141 > hydrophilic surfaces. Experimentally, measurements of the contact angle
142 > of sessile drops has been used to quantify the extent of wetting on surfaces
143 > with thermally selective wetting charactaristics\cite{Tadanaga00,Liu04,Sun04},
144 > as well as nano-pillared surfaces with electrically tunable Cassie-Baxter and
145 > Wenzel states\cite{Herbertson06,Dhindsa06,Verplanck07,Ahuja08,Manukyan11}.
146 > Luzar and coworkers have done significant work modeling these transitions on
147 > nano-patterned surfaces\cite{Daub07,Daub10,Daub11,Ritchie12}, and have found
148 > the change in contact angle to be due to the external field perturbing the
149 > hydrogen bonding of the liquid/vapor interface\cite{Daub07}.
150 >
151 > The resulting solid/liquid kinetic friction coefficients were
152 > reported, and displayed a factor of two difference between the
153 > basal and prismatic facets.
154 > In this paper we present the same analysis for the pyramidal and secondary
155 > prismatic facets, and show that the differential interfacial friction
156 > coefficients for the four facets of ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ are determined by their
157 > relative hydrophilicity by means of dynamics water contact angle simulations.
158 >
159 > \section{Methodology}
160 >
161 > \subsection{Water Model}
162 > Understanding ice/water interfaces inherently begins with the isolated
163 > systems. There has been extensive work parameterizing models for liquid water,
164 > such as the SPC\cite{Berendsen81}, SPC/E\cite{Berendsen87},
165 > TIP4P\cite{Jorgensen85}, TIP4P/2005\cite{Abascal05},
166 > ($\dots$), and more recently, models for simulating
167 > the solid phases of water, such as the TIP4P/Ice\cite{Abascal05b} model. The
168 > melting point of various crystal structures of ice have been calculated for
169 > many of these models
170 > (SPC\cite{Karim90,Abascal07}, SPC/E\cite{Baez95,Arbuckle02,Gay02,Bryk02,Bryk04b,Sanz04b,Gernandez06,Abascal07,Vrbka07}, TIP4P\cite{Karim88,Gao00,Sanz04,Sanz04b,Koyama04,Wang05,Fernandez06,Abascal07}, TIP5P\cite{Sanz04,Koyama04,Wang05,Fernandez06,Abascal07}),
171 > and the partial or complete phase diagram for the model has been determined
172 > (SPC/E\cite{Baez95,Bryk04b,Sanz04b}, TIP4P\cite{Sanz04,Sanz04b,Koyama04}, TIP5P\cite{Sanz04,Koyama04}).
173 >
174 > Haymet et al. have studied the quiescent Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water interface
175 > using the rigid SPC, SPC/E, TIP4P, and the flexible CF1 water models, and has seen good
176 > agreement for structural and dynamic measurements of the interfacial
177 > width. Given the expansive size of our systems of interest, and to
178 > compare with our previous work, we have chosen to use rigid SPC/E
179 > water model in this study.
180 >
181 > \subsection{Pyramidal and secondary prismatic system construction}
182 >
183 > The construction of the pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems follows that
184 > of
185 > the basal and prismatic systems presented elsewhere\cite{Louden13}, however
186 > the ice crystals and water boxes were equilibrated and combined at 50K
187 > instead of 225K. The ice / water systems generated were then equilibrated
188 > to 225K. The resulting pyramidal system was
189 > $37.47 \times 29.50 \times 93.02$ \AA\ with 1216
190 > SPC/E\cite{Berendsen87} molecules in the ice slab, and 2203 in the liquid
191 > phase. The secondary
192 > prismatic system generated was $71.87 \times 31.66 \times 161.55$ \AA\ with
193 > 3840
194 > SPC/E molecules in the ice slab and 8176 molecules in the liquid phase.
195 >
196 > \subsection{Shearing simulations}
197 > % Do we need to justify the sims at 225K?
198 > % No crystal growth or shrinkage over 2 successive 1 ns NVT simulations for
199 > %    either the pyramidal or sec. prismatic ice/water systems.
200 >
201 > The computational details performed here were equivalent to those reported
202 > in our previous publication\cite{Louden13}. The only changes made to the
203 > previously reported procedure were the following. VSS-RNEMD moves were
204 > attempted every 2 fs instead of every 50 fs. This was done to minimize
205 > the magnitude of each individual VSS-RNEMD perturbation to the system.
206 >
207 > All pyramidal simulations were performed under the canonical (NVT) ensamble
208 > except those
209 > during which statistics were accumulated for the orientational correlation
210 > function, which were performed under the microcanonical (NVE) ensamble. All
211 > secondary prismatic
212 > simulations were performed under the NVE ensamble.
213 >
214 > \subsection{Droplet simulations}
215 > Here, we will calculate the contact angle of a water droplet as it spreads
216 > across each of the four ice I$_\mathrm{h}$ crystal facets in order to
217 > determine the surface's relative hydrophilicites. The ice surfaces were
218 > oriented so that the desired facet was exposed to the positive z dimension.
219 > The sizes and number of molecules in each of the surfaces is given in Table
220 > \ref{tab:ice_sheets}. Molecular restraints were applied to the center of mass
221 > of the rigid bodies to prevent surface melting, however the molecules were
222 > allowed to reorient themselves freely. The water doplet to be placed on the
223 > surface contained 2048 SPC/E molecules, which has been found to produce
224 > agreement for the Young contact angle extrapolated to an infinite drop
225 > size\cite{Daub10}. The surfaces and droplet were equilibrated to 225 K, at
226 > which time the droplet was placed  3-5 \AA\ above the surface at 5 unique
227 > locations. Each simulation was 5 ns in length and conducted in the NVE
228 > ensemble.  
229 >
230 >
231 > \section{Results and discussion}
232 > \subsection{Interfacial width}
233 > In the literature there is good agreement that between the solid ice and
234 > the bulk water, there exists a region of 'slush-like' water molecules.
235 > In this region, the water molecules are structurely distinguishable and
236 > behave differently than those of the solid ice or the bulk water.
237 > The characteristics of this region have been defined by both structural
238 > and dynamic properties; and its width has been measured by the change of these
239 > properties from their bulk liquid values to those of the solid ice.
240 > Examples of these properties include the density, the diffusion constant, and
241 > the translational order profile. \cite{Bryk02,Karim90,Gay02,Hayward01,Hayward02,Karim88}  
242 >
243 > Since the VSS-RNEMD moves used to impose the thermal and velocity gradients
244 > perturb the momenta of the water molecules in
245 > the systems, parameters that depend on translational motion may give
246 > faulty results. A stuructural parameter will be less effected by the
247 > VSS-RNEMD perturbations to the system. Due to this, we have used the
248 > local tetrahedral order parameter (Eq 5\cite{Louden13} to quantify the width of the interface,
249 > which was originally described by Kumar\cite{Kumar09} and
250 > Errington\cite{Errington01}, and used by Bryk and Haymet in a previous study
251 > of ice/water interfaces.\cite{Bryk04b}
252 >
253 > To determine the width of the interfaces, each of the systems were
254 > divided into 100 artificial bins along the
255 > $z$-dimension, and the local tetrahedral order parameter, $q(z)$, was
256 > time-averaged for each of the bins, resulting in a tetrahedrality profile of
257 > the system. These profiles are shown across the $z$-dimension of the systems
258 > in panel $a$ of Figures \ref{fig:pyrComic}
259 > and \ref{fig:spComic} (black circles). The $q(z)$ function has a range of
260 > (0,1), where a larger value indicates a more tetrahedral environment.
261 > The $q(z)$ for the bulk liquid was found to be $\approx $ 0.77, while values of
262 > $\approx $ 0.92 were more common for the ice. The tetrahedrality profiles were
263 > fit using a hyperbolic tangent\cite{Louden13} designed to smoothly fit the
264 > bulk to ice
265 > transition, while accounting for the thermal influence on the profile by the
266 > kinetic energy exchanges of the VSS-RNEMD moves. In panels $b$ and $c$, the
267 > resulting thermal and velocity gradients from an imposed kinetic energy and
268 > momentum fluxes can be seen. The verticle dotted
269 > lines traversing all three panels indicate the midpoints of the interface
270 > as determined by the hyperbolic tangent fit of the tetrahedrality profiles.
271 >
272 > From fitting the tetrahedrality profiles for each of the 0.5 nanosecond
273 > simulations (panel c of Figures \ref{fig:pyrComic} and \ref{fig:spComic})
274 > by eq. 6\cite{Louden13},we find the interfacial width to be
275 > 3.2 $\pm$ 0.2 and 3.2 $\pm$ 0.2 \AA\ for the control system with no applied
276 > momentum flux for both the pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems.
277 > Over the range of shear rates investigated,
278 > 0.6 $\pm$ 0.2 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 5.6 $\pm$ 0.4 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$
279 > for the pyramidal system and 0.9 $\pm$ 0.3 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 5.4
280 > $\pm$ 0.1 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the secondary prismatic, we found no
281 > significant change in the interfacial width. This follows our previous
282 > findings of the basal and
283 > prismatic systems, in which the interfacial width was invarient of the
284 > shear rate of the ice. The interfacial width of the quiescent basal and
285 > prismatic systems was found to be 3.2 $\pm$ 0.4 \AA\ and 3.6 $\pm$ 0.2 \AA\
286 > respectively, over the range of shear rates investigated, 0.6 $\pm$ 0.3
287 > $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 5.3 $\pm$ 0.5 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the basal
288 > system and 0.9 $\pm$ 0.2 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 4.5 $\pm$ 0.1
289 > $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the prismatic.
290 >
291 > These results indicate that the surface structure of the exposed ice crystal
292 > has little to no effect on how far into the bulk the ice-like structural
293 > ordering is. Also, it appears that the interface is not structurally effected
294 > by shearing the ice through water.
295 >
296 >
297 > \subsection{Orientational dynamics}
298 > %Should we include the math here?
299 > The orientational time correlation function,
300 > \begin{equation}\label{C(t)1}
301 >  C_{2}(t)=\langle P_{2}(\mathbf{u}(0)\cdot \mathbf{u}(t))\rangle,
302 > \end{equation}
303 > helps indicate the local environment around the water molecules. The function
304 > begins with an initial value of unity, and decays to zero as the water molecule
305 > loses memory of its former orientation. Observing the rate at which this decay
306 > occurs can provide insight to the mechanism and timescales for the relaxation.
307 > In eq. \eqref{C(t)1}, $P_{2}$ is the second-order Legendre polynomial, and
308 > $\mathbf{u}$ is the bisecting HOH vector. The angle brackets indicate
309 > an ensemble average over all the water molecules in a given spatial region.
310 >
311 > To investigate the dynamics of the water molecules across the interface, the
312 > systems were divided in the $z$-dimension into bins, each $\approx$ 3 \AA\
313 > wide, and eq. \eqref{C(t)1} was computed for each of the bins. A water
314 > molecule was allocated to a particular bin if it was initially in the bin
315 > at time zero. To compute eq. \eqref{C(t)1}, each 0.5 ns simulation was
316 > followed by an additional 200 ps NVE simulation during which the
317 > position and orientations of each molecule were recorded every 0.1 ps.
318 >
319 > The data obtained for each bin was then fit to a triexponential decay
320 > with the three decay constants
321 > $\tau_{short}$ corresponding to the librational motion of the water  
322 > molecules, $\tau_{middle}$ corresponding to jumps between the breaking and
323 > making of hydrogen bonds, and $\tau_{long}$ corresponding to the translational
324 > motion of the water molecules. An additive constant in the fit accounts
325 > for the water molecules trapped in the ice which do not experience any
326 > long-time orientational decay.
327 >
328 > In Figures \ref{fig:PyrOrient} and \ref{fig:SPorient} we see the $z$-coordinate
329 > profiles for the three decay constants, $\tau_{short}$ (panel a),
330 > $\tau_{middle}$ (panel b),
331 > and $\tau_{long}$ (panel c) for the pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems
332 > respectively. The control experiments (no shear) are shown in black, and
333 > an experiment with an imposed momentum flux is shown in red. The vertical
334 > dotted line traversing all three panels denotes the midpoint of the
335 > interface as determined by the local tetrahedral order parameter fitting.
336 > In the liquid regions of both systems, we see that $\tau_{middle}$ and
337 > $\tau_{long}$ have approximately consistent values of $3-6$ ps and $30-40$ ps,
338 > resepctively, and increase in value as we approach the interface. Conversely,
339 > in panel a, we see that $\tau_{short}$ decreases from the liquid value
340 > of $72-76$ fs as we approach the interface. We believe this speed up is due to
341 > the constrained motion of librations closer to the interface. Both the
342 > approximate values for the decays and trends approaching the interface  match
343 > those reported previously for the basal and prismatic interfaces.
344 >
345 > As done previously, we have attempted to quantify the distance, $d_{pyramidal}$
346 > and $d_{secondary prismatic}$, from the
347 > interface that the deviations from the bulk liquid values begin. This was done
348 > by fitting the orientational decay constant $z$-profiles by
349 > \begin{equation}\label{tauFit}
350 > \tau(z)\approx\tau_{liquid}+(\tau_{wall}-\tau_{liquid})e^{-(z-z_{wall})/d}
351 > \end{equation}
352 > where $\tau_{liquid}$ and $\tau_{wall}$ are the liquid and projected wall
353 > values of the decay constants, $z_{wall}$ is the location of the interface,
354 > and $d$ is the displacement from the interface at which these deviations
355 > occur. The values for $d_{pyramidal}$ and $d_{secondary prismatic}$ were
356 > determined
357 > for each of the decay constants, and then averaged for better statistics
358 > ($\tau_{middle}$ was ommitted for secondary prismatic). For the pyramidal
359 > system,
360 > $d_{pyramidal}$ was found to be 2.7 \AA\ for both the control and the sheared
361 > system. We found $d_{secondary prismatic}$ to be slightly larger than
362 > $d_{pyramidal}$ for both the control and with an applied shear, with
363 > displacements of $4$ \AA\ for the control system and $3$ \AA\ for the
364 > experiment with the imposed momentum flux. These values are consistent with
365 > those found for the basal ($d_{basal}\approx2.9$ \AA\ ) and prismatic
366 > ($d_{prismatic}\approx3.5$ \AA\ ) systems.
367 >
368 > \subsection{Coefficient of friction of the interfaces}
369 > While investigating the kinetic coefficient of friction, there was found
370 > to be a dependence for $\mu_k$
371 > on the temperature of the liquid water in the system. We believe this
372 > dependence
373 > arrises from the sharp discontinuity of the viscosity for the SPC/E model
374 > at temperatures approaching 200 K\cite{Kuang12}. Due to this, we propose
375 > a weighting to the interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$ by the
376 > shear viscosity of the fluid at 225 K. The interfacial friction coefficient
377 > relates the shear stress with the relative velocity of the fluid normal to the
378 > interface:
379 > \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-13}
380 > j_{z}(p_{x}) = \kappa[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]
381 > \end{equation}
382 > where $j_{z}(p_{x})$ is the applied momentum flux (shear stress) across $z$
383 > in the
384 > $x$-dimension, and $v_{x}$(fluid) and $v_{x}$(solid) are the velocities
385 > directly adjacent to the interface. The shear viscosity, $\eta(T)$, of the
386 > fluid can be determined under a linear response of the momentum
387 > gradient to the applied shear stress by
388 > \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-11}
389 > j_{z}(p_{x}) = \eta(T) \frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}.
390 > \end{equation}
391 > Using eqs \eqref{Shenyu-13} and \eqref{Shenyu-11}, we can find the following
392 > expression for $\kappa$,
393 > \begin{equation}\label{kappa-1}
394 > \kappa = \eta(T) \frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}\frac{1}{[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]}.
395 > \end{equation}
396 > Here is where we will introduce the weighting term of $\eta(225)/\eta(T)$
397 > giving us
398 > \begin{equation}\label{kappa-2}
399 > \kappa = \frac{\eta(225)}{[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]}\frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}.
400 > \end{equation}
401 >
402 > To obtain the value of $\eta(225)$ for the SPC/E model, a $31.09 \times 29.38
403 > \times 124.39$ \AA\ box with 3744 SPC/E liquid water molecules was
404 > equilibrated to 225K,
405 > and 5 unique shearing experiments were performed. Each experiment was
406 > conducted in the NVE and were 5 ns in
407 > length. The VSS were attempted every timestep, which was set to 2 fs.
408 > For our SPC/E systems, we found $\eta(225)$  to be 0.0148 $\pm$ 0.0007 Pa s,
409 > roughly ten times larger than the value found for 280 K SPC/E bulk water by
410 > Kuang\cite{Kuang12}.
411 >
412 > The interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$, can equivalently be expressed
413 > as the ratio of the viscosity of the fluid to the slip length, $\delta$, which
414 > is an indication of how 'slippery' the interface is.
415 > \begin{equation}\label{kappa-3}
416 > \kappa = \frac{\eta}{\delta}
417 > \end{equation}
418 > In each of the systems, the interfacial temperature was kept fixed to 225K,
419 > which ensured the viscosity of the fluid at the
420 > interace was approximately the same. Thus, any significant variation in
421 > $\kappa$ between
422 > the systems indicates differences in the 'slipperiness' of the interfaces.
423 > As each of the ice systems are sheared relative to liquid water, the
424 > 'slipperiness' of the interface can be taken as an indication of how
425 > hydrophobic or hydrophilic the interface is. The calculated $\kappa$ values
426 > found for the four crystal facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ investigated are shown
427 > in Table \ref{tab:kappa}. The basal and pyramidal facets were found to have
428 > similar values of $\kappa \approx$ 0.0006
429 > (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}), while values of
430 > $\kappa \approx$ 0.0003 (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})
431 > were found for the prismatic and secondary prismatic systems.
432 > These results indicate that the basal and pyramidal facets are
433 > more hydrophilic than the prismatic and secondary prismatic facets.
434 >
435 > \subsection{Dynamic water contact angle}
436 >
437 >
438 >
439 >
440 > \section{Conclusion}
441 > We present the results of molecular dynamics simulations of the pyrmaidal
442 > and secondary prismatic facets of an SPC/E model of the
443 > Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water interface. The ice was sheared through the liquid
444 > water while being exposed to a thermal gradient to maintain a stable
445 > interface by using the minimally perturbing VSS RNEMD method. In agreement
446 > with our previous findings for the basal and prismatic facets, the interfacial
447 > width was found to be independent of shear rate as measured by the local
448 > tetrahedral order parameter. This width was found to be
449 > 3.2~$\pm$ 0.2~\AA\ for both the pyramidal and the secondary prismatic systems.
450 > These values are in good agreement with our previously calculated interfacial
451 > widths for the basal (3.2~$\pm$ 0.4~\AA\ ) and prismatic (3.6~$\pm$ 0.2~\AA\ )
452 > systems.
453 >
454 > Orientational dynamics of the Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water interfaces were studied
455 > by calculation of the orientational time correlation function at varying
456 > displacements normal to the interface. The decays were fit
457 > to a tri-exponential decay, where the three decay constants correspond to
458 > the librational motion of the molecules driven by the restoring forces of
459 > existing hydrogen bonds ($\tau_{short}$ $\mathcal{O}$(10 fs)), jumps between
460 > two different hydrogen bonds ($\tau_{middle}$ $\mathcal{O}$(1 ps)), and
461 > translational motion of the molecules ($\tau_{long}$ $\mathcal{O}$(100 ps)).
462 > $\tau_{short}$ was found to decrease approaching the interface due to the
463 > constrained motion of the molecules as the local environment becomes more
464 > ice-like. Conversely, the two longer-time decay constants were found to
465 > increase at small displacements from the interface. As seen in our previous
466 > work on the basal and prismatic facets, there appears to be a dynamic
467 > interface width at which deviations from the bulk liquid values occur.
468 > We had previously found $d_{basal}$ and $d_{prismatic}$ to be approximately
469 > 2.8~\AA\ and 3.5~\AA. We found good agreement of these values for the
470 > pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems with $d_{pyramidal}$ and
471 > $d_{secondary prismatic}$ to be 2.7~\AA\ and 3~\AA. For all four of the
472 > facets, no apparent dependence of the dynamic width on the shear rate was
473 > found.
474 >  
475 > %Paragraph summarizing the Kappa values
476 > The interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$, was determined for each facet
477 > interface. We were able to reach an expression for $\kappa$ as a function of
478 > the velocity profile of the system which is scaled by the viscosity of the liquid
479 > at 225 K. In doing so, we have obtained an expression for $\kappa$ which is
480 > independent of temperature differences of the liquid water at far displacements
481 > from the interface. We found the basal and pyramidal facets to have
482 > similar $\kappa$ values, of $\kappa \approx$ 0.0006
483 > (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}). However, the
484 > prismatic and secondary prismatic facets were found to have $\kappa$ values of
485 > $\kappa \approx$ 0.0003 (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}).
486 > As these ice facets are being sheared relative to liquid water, with the
487 > structural and dynamic width of all four
488 > interfaces being approximately the same, the difference in the coefficient of
489 > friction indicates the hydrophilicity of the crystal facets are not
490 > equivalent. Namely, that the basal and pyramidal facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$
491 > are more hydrophilic than the prismatic and secondary prismatic facets.
492 >
493 >
494 > \begin{acknowledgments}
495 >  Support for this project was provided by the National
496 >  Science Foundation under grant CHE-1362211. Computational time was
497 >  provided by the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the
498 >  University of Notre Dame.
499 > \end{acknowledgments}
500 >
501 > \newpage
502 >
503 > \bibliography{iceWater.bib}
504 >
505 > There is significant interest in the properties of ice/ice and ice/water
506 > interfaces in the geophysics community. Most commonly, the results of shearing
507 > two ice blocks past one
508 > another\cite{Casassa91, Sukhorukov13, Pritchard12, Lishman13} or the shearing
509 > of ice through water\cite{Cuffey99, Bell08}. Using molecular dynamics
510 > simulations, Samadashvili has recently shown that when two smooth ice slabs
511 > slide past one another, a stable liquid-like layer develops between
512 > them\cite{Samadashvili13}. To fundamentally understand these processes, a
513 > molecular understanding of the ice/water interfaces is needed.    
514 >
515 > Investigation of the ice/water interface is also crucial in understanding
516 > processes such as nucleation, crystal
517 > growth,\cite{Han92, Granasy95, Vanfleet95} and crystal
518 > melting\cite{Weber83, Han92, Sakai96, Sakai96B}. Insight gained to these
519 > properties can also be applied to biological systems of interest, such as
520 > the behavior of the antifreeze protein found in winter
521 > flounder,\cite{Wierzbicki07,Chapsky97} and certain terrestial
522 > arthropods.\cite{Duman:2001qy,Meister29012013} Elucidating the properties which
523 > give rise to these processes through experimental techniques can be expensive,
524 > complicated, and sometimes infeasible. However, through the use of molecular
525 > dynamics simulations much of the problems of investigating these properties
526 > are alleviated.
527 >
528 > Understanding ice/water interfaces inherently begins with the isolated
529 > systems. There has been extensive work parameterizing models for liquid water,
530 > such as the SPC\cite{Berendsen81}, SPC/E\cite{Berendsen87},
531 > TIP4P\cite{Jorgensen85}, TIP4P/2005\cite{Abascal05},
532 > ($\dots$), and more recently, models for simulating
533 > the solid phases of water, such as the TIP4P/Ice\cite{Abascal05b} model. The
534 > melting point of various crystal structures of ice have been calculated for
535 > many of these models
536 > (SPC\cite{Karim90,Abascal07}, SPC/E\cite{Baez95,Arbuckle02,Gay02,Bryk02,Bryk04b,Sanz04b,Gernandez06,Abascal07,Vrbka07}, TIP4P\cite{Karim88,Gao00,Sanz04,Sanz04b,Koyama04,Wang05,Fernandez06,Abascal07}, TIP5P\cite{Sanz04,Koyama04,Wang05,Fernandez06,Abascal07}),
537 > and the partial or complete phase diagram for the model has been determined
538 > (SPC/E\cite{Baez95,Bryk04b,Sanz04b}, TIP4P\cite{Sanz04,Sanz04b,Koyama04}, TIP5P\cite{Sanz04,Koyama04}).
539 > Knowing the behavior and melting point for these models has enabled an initial
540 > investigation of ice/water interfaces.
541 >
542 > The Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water quiescent interface has been extensively studied
543 > over the past 30 years by theory and experiment. Haymet \emph{et al.} have
544 > done significant work characterizing and quantifying the width of these
545 > interfaces for the SPC,\cite{Karim90} SPC/E,\cite{Gay02,Bryk02},
546 > CF1,\cite{Hayward01,Hayward02} and TIP4P\cite{Karim88} models for water. In
547 > recent years, Haymet has focused on investigating the effects cations and
548 > anions have on crystal nucleaion and
549 > melting.\cite{Bryk04,Smith05,Wilson08,Wilson10} Nada and Furukawa have studied
550 > the the basal- and prismatic-water interface width\cite{Nada95}, crystal
551 > surface restructuring at temperatures approaching the melting
552 > point\cite{Nada00}, and the mechanism of ice growth inhibition by antifreeze
553 > proteins\cite{Nada08,Nada11,Nada12}. Nada has developed a six-site water model
554 > for ice/water interfaces near the melting point\cite{Nada03}, and studied the
555 > dependence of crystal growth shape on applied pressure\cite{Nada11b}. Using
556 > this model, Nada and Furukawa have established differential
557 > growth rates for the basal, prismatic, and secondary prismatic facets of
558 > Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ and found their origins due to a reordering of the hydrogen
559 > bond network in water near the interface\cite{Nada05}. While the work
560 > described so far has mainly focused on bulk water on ice, there is significant
561 > interest in thin films of water on ice surfaces as well.  
562 >
563 > It is well known that the surface of ice exhibits a premelting layer at
564 > temperatures near the melting point, often called a quasi-liquid layer (QLL).
565 > Molecular dynamics simulations of the facets of ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ exposed
566 > to vacuum performed by Conde, Vega and Patrykiejew have found QLL widths of
567 > approximately 10 \AA\ at 3 K below the melting point\cite{Conde08}.
568 > Similarly, Limmer and Chandler have used course grain simulations and
569 > statistical field theory to estimated QLL widths at the same temperature to
570 > be about 3 nm\cite{Limmer14}.
571 > Recently, Sazaki and Furukawa have developed an experimental technique with
572 > sufficient spatial and temporal resolution to visulaize and quantitatively
573 > analyze QLLs on ice crystals at temperatures near melting\cite{Sazaki10}. They
574 > have found the width of the QLLs perpindicular to the surface  at -2.2$^{o}$C
575 > to be $\mathcal{O}$(\AA). They have also seen the formation of two immiscible
576 > QLLs, which displayed different stabilities and dynamics on the crystal
577 > surface\cite{Sazaki12}. Knowledge of the hydrophilicities of each
578 > of the crystal facets would help further our understanding of the properties
579 > and dynamics of the QLLs.
580 >  
581 > Presented here is the follow up to our previous paper\cite{Louden13}, in which
582 > the basal and prismatic facets of an ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water interface were
583 > investigated where the ice was sheared relative to the liquid. By using a
584 > recently developed velocity shearing and scaling approach to reverse
585 > non-equilibrium molecular dynamics (VSS-RNEMD), simultaneous temperature and
586 > velocity gradients can be applied to the system, which allows for measurment
587 > of friction and thermal transport properties while maintaining a stable
588 > interfacial temperature\cite{Kuang12}. Structural analysis and dynamic
589 > correlation functions were used to probe the interfacial response to a shear,
590 > and the resulting solid/liquid kinetic friction coefficients were reported.
591 > In this paper we present the same analysis for the pyramidal and secondary
592 > prismatic facets, and show that the differential interfacial friction
593 > coefficients for the four facets of ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ are determined by their
594 > relative hydrophilicity by means of dynamics water contact angle
595 > simulations.
596 >
597 > The local tetrahedral order parameter, $q(z)$, is given by
598 > \begin{equation}
599 > q(z) = \int_0^L \sum_{k=1}^{N} \Bigg(1 -\frac{3}{8}\sum_{i=1}^{3}
600 > \sum_{j=i+1}^{4} \bigg(\cos\psi_{ikj}+\frac{1}{3}\bigg)^2\Bigg)
601 > \delta(z_{k}-z)\mathrm{d}z \Bigg/ N_z
602 > \label{eq:qz}
603 > \end{equation}
604 > where $\psi_{ikj}$ is the angle formed between the oxygen sites of molecules
605 > $i$,$k$, and $j$, where the centeral oxygen is located within molecule $k$ and
606 > molecules $i$ and $j$ are two of the closest four water molecules
607 > around molecule $k$. All four closest neighbors of molecule $k$ are also
608 > required to reside within the first peak of the pair distribution function
609 > for molecule $k$ (typically $<$ 3.41 \AA\ for water).
610 > $N_z = \int\delta(z_k - z) \mathrm{d}z$ is a normalization factor to account
611 > for the varying population of molecules within each finite-width bin.
612 >
613 >
614 > The hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of a surface can be described by the
615 > extent a droplet of water wets the surface. The contact angle formed between
616 > the solid and the liquid, $\theta$, which relates the free energies of the
617 > three interfaces involved, is given by Young's equation.
618 > \begin{equation}\label{young}
619 > \cos\theta = (\gamma_{sv} - \gamma_{sl})/\gamma_{lv}
620 > \end{equation}
621 > Here $\gamma_{sv}$, $\gamma_{sl}$, and $\gamma_{lv}$ are the free energies
622 > of the solid/vapor, solid/liquid, and liquid/vapor interfaces respectively.
623 > Large contact angles ($\theta$ $\gg$ 90\textsuperscript{o}) correspond to low
624 > wettability and hydrophobic surfaces, while small contact angles
625 > ($\theta$ $\ll$ 90\textsuperscript{o}) correspond to high wettability and
626 > hydrophilic surfaces. Experimentally, measurements of the contact angle
627 > of sessile drops has been used to quantify the extent of wetting on surfaces
628 > with thermally selective wetting charactaristics\cite{Tadanaga00,Liu04,Sun04},
629 > as well as nano-pillared surfaces with electrically tunable Cassie-Baxter and
630 > Wenzel states\cite{Herbertson06,Dhindsa06,Verplanck07,Ahuja08,Manukyan11}.
631 > Luzar and coworkers have done significant work modeling these transitions on
632 > nano-patterned surfaces\cite{Daub07,Daub10,Daub11,Ritchie12}, and have found
633 > the change in contact angle to be due to the external field perturbing the
634 > hydrogen bonding of the liquid/vapor interface\cite{Daub07}.
635 >
636 >
637 >
638 > \end{article}
639 >
640 > \begin{figure}
641 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr_comic_strip}
642 > \caption{\label{fig:pyrComic} The pyramidal interface with a shear
643 > rate of 3.8 ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Lower panel: the local tetrahedral order
644 > parameter, $q(z)$, (black circles) and the hyperbolic tangent fit (red line).
645 > Middle panel: the imposed thermal gradient required to maintain a fixed
646 > interfacial temperature. Upper panel: the transverse velocity gradient that
647 > develops in response to an imposed momentum flux. The vertical dotted lines
648 > indicate the locations of the midpoints of the two interfaces.}
649 > \end{figure}
650 >
651 > \begin{figure}
652 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SP_comic_strip}
653 > \caption{\label{fig:spComic} The secondary prismatic interface with a shear
654 > rate of 3.5 \
655 > ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Panel descriptions match those in figure \ref{fig:pyrComic}.}
656 > \end{figure}
657 >
658 > \begin{figure}
659 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr-orient}
660 > \caption{\label{fig:PyrOrient} The three decay constants of the
661 > orientational time correlation function, $C_2(t)$, for water as a function
662 > of distance from the center of the ice slab. The vertical dashed line
663 > indicates the edge of the pyramidal ice slab determined by the local order
664 > tetrahedral parameter. The control (black circles) and sheared (red squares)
665 > experiments were fit by a shifted exponential decay (Eq. 9\cite{Louden13})
666 > shown by the black and red lines respectively. The upper two panels show that
667 > translational and hydrogen bond making and breaking events slow down
668 > through the interface while approaching the ice slab. The bottom most panel
669 > shows the librational motion of the water molecules speeding up approaching
670 > the ice block due to the confined region of space allowed for the molecules
671 > to move in.}
672 > \end{figure}  
673 >
674 > \begin{figure}
675 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SP-orient-less}
676 > \caption{\label{fig:SPorient} Decay constants for $C_2(t)$ at the secondary
677 > prismatic face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig:PyrOrient}.}
678 > \end{figure}
679 >
680 >
681 > \begin{table}[h]
682 > \centering
683 > \caption{Phyiscal properties of the basal, prismatic, pyramidal, and secondary prismatic facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$}
684 > \label{tab:kappa}
685 > \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}  \hline
686 >           & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\kappa_{Drag direction}$
687 >             (x10\textsuperscript{-4} amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})} & & \\
688 > Interface & $\kappa_{x}$     & $\kappa_{y}$  & $\theta_{\infty}$ & $K_{spread} (ns^{-1})$   \\ \hline
689 >     basal & $5.9 \pm 0.3$ & $6.5 \pm 0.8$ & $34.1 \pm 0.9$ & $0.60 \pm 0.07$  \\
690 > pyramidal & $5.8 \pm 0.4$ & $6.1 \pm 0.5$ & $35 \pm 3$ & $0.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
691 > prismatic & $3.0 \pm 0.2$ & $3.0 \pm 0.1$ & $45 \pm 3$ & $0.75 \pm 0.09$ \\
692 > secondary prismatic & $3.5 \pm 0.1$ & $3.3 \pm 0.2$ & $42 \pm 2$ & $0.69 \pm 0.03$ \\ \hline
693 > \end{tabular}
694 > \end{table}
695 >
696 >
697 > \begin{table}[h]
698 > \centering
699 > \caption{Shearing and Droplet simulation parameters}
700 > \label{tab:method}
701 > \begin{tabular}{|cccc|ccc|} \hline
702 > & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Shearing} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Droplet}\\
703 > Interface & $N_{ice}$ & $N_{liquid}$ & Lx, Ly, Lz (\AA) &
704 > $N_{ice}$ & $N_{droplet}$ & Lx, Ly (\AA) \\ \hline
705 > Basal & 900 & 1846 & (23.87, 35.83, 98.64) & 12960 & 2048 & (134.70, 140.04)\\
706 > Prismatic & 3000 & 5464 & (35.95, 35.65, 205.77) & 9900 & 2048 &
707 > (110.04, 115.00)\\
708 > Pyramidal & 1216 & 2203& (37.47, 29.50, 93.02) & 11136 & 2048 &
709 > (143.75, 121.41)\\
710 > Secondary Prismatic & 3840 & 8176 & (71.87, 31.66, 161.55) & 11520 &
711 > 2048 & (146.72, 124.48)\\
712 > \hline
713 > \end{tabular}
714 > \end{table}
715 >
716 > \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines