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 4225 by plouden, Tue Sep 16 20:27:18 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4226 by plouden, Wed Sep 17 14:16:03 2014 UTC

# Line 74 | Line 74 | prism facets under shear.
74   seem to be investigating how the interfaces is perturbed by the presence of
75   ions. This is the conlcusion of a recent publication of the basal and
76   prismatic facets of ice Ih, now presenting the pyramidal and secondary
77 < prism facets under shear.
77 > prismatic facets under shear.
78  
79   \section{Methodology}
80  
81   \begin{figure}
82 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SP_comic_strip}
83 < \caption{\label{fig:spComic} The secondary prism interface with a shear
84 < rate of 3.5 ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Lower panel: the local tetrahedral order
82 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr_comic_strip}
83 > \caption{\label{fig:pyrComic} The pyramidal interface with a shear
84 > rate of 3.8 ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Lower panel: the local tetrahedral order
85   parameter, $q(z)$, (black circles) and the hyperbolic tangent fit (red line).
86   Middle panel: the imposed thermal gradient required to maintain a fixed
87   interfacial temperature. Upper panel: the transverse velocity gradient that
# Line 90 | Line 90 | indicate the locations of the midpoints of the two int
90   \end{figure}
91  
92   \begin{figure}
93 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr_comic_strip}
94 < \caption{\label{fig:pyrComic} The pyramidal interface with a shear rate of 3.8 \
95 < ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Panel descriptions match those in figure \ref{fig:spComic}.}
93 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SP_comic_strip}
94 > \caption{\label{fig:spComic} The secondary prismatic interface with a shear
95 > rate of 3.5 \
96 > ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Panel descriptions match those in figure \ref{fig:pyrComic}.}
97   \end{figure}
98  
99 < \subsection{Pyramidal and secondary prism system construction}
99 > \subsection{Pyramidal and secondary prismatic system construction}
100  
101 < The construction of the pyramidal and secondary prism systems follows that of
101 > The construction of the pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems follows that
102 > of
103   the basal and prismatic systems presented elsewhere\cite{Louden13}, however
104   the ice crystals and water boxes were equilibrated and combined at 50K
105   instead of 225K. The ice / water systems generated were then equilibrated
106   to 225K. The resulting pyramidal system was
107   $37.47 \times 29.50 \times 93.02$ \AA\ with 1216
108   SPC/E molecules in the ice slab, and 2203 in the liquid phase. The secondary
109 < prism system generated was $71.87 \times 31.66 \times 161.55$ \AA\ with 3840
109 > prismatic system generated was $71.87 \times 31.66 \times 161.55$ \AA\ with
110 > 3840
111   SPC/E molecules in the ice slab and 8176 molecules in the liquid phase.
112  
113   \subsection{Computational details}
114   % Do we need to justify the sims at 225K?
115   % No crystal growth or shrinkage over 2 successive 1 ns NVT simulations for
116 < %    either the pyramidal or sec. prism ice/water systems.
116 > %    either the pyramidal or sec. prismatic ice/water systems.
117  
118   The computational details performed here were equivalent to those reported
119   in our previous publication\cite{Louden13}. The only changes made to the
# Line 118 | Line 121 | All pyramidal simulations were performed under the NVT
121   attempted every 2 fs instead of every 50 fs. This was done to minimize
122   the magnitude of each individual VSS-RNEMD perturbation to the system.
123  
124 < All pyramidal simulations were performed under the NVT ensamble except those
124 > All pyramidal simulations were performed under the canonical (NVT) ensamble
125 > except those
126   during which statistics were accumulated for the orientational correlation
127 < function, which were performed under the NVE ensamble. All secondary prism
127 > function, which were performed under the microcanonical (NVE) ensamble. All
128 > secondary prismatic
129   simulations were performed under the NVE ensamble.
130  
131   \section{Results and discussion}
# Line 140 | Line 145 | local order tetrahedral parameter to quantify the widt
145   the systems, parameters that depend on translational motion may give
146   faulty results. A stuructural parameter will be less effected by the
147   VSS-RNEMD perturbations to the system. Due to this, we have used the
148 < local order tetrahedral parameter to quantify the width of the interface,
148 > local tetrahedral order parameter to quantify the width of the interface,
149   which was originally described by Kumar\cite{Kumar09} and
150   Errington\cite{Errington01}, and used by Bryk and Haymet in a previous study
151   of ice/water interfaces.\cite{Bryk2004b}
# Line 166 | Line 171 | in panel $a$ of Figures \ref{fig:spComic}
171   $z$-dimension, and the local tetrahedral order parameter, $q(z)$, was
172   time-averaged for each of the bins, resulting in a tetrahedrality profile of
173   the system. These profiles are shown across the $z$-dimension of the systems
174 < in panel $a$ of Figures \ref{fig:spComic}
175 < and \ref{fig:pyrComic} (black circles). The $q(z)$ function has a range of
174 > in panel $a$ of Figures \ref{fig:pyrComic}
175 > and \ref{fig:spComic} (black circles). The $q(z)$ function has a range of
176   (0,1), where a larger value indicates a more tetrahedral environment.
177   The $q(z)$ for the bulk liquid was found to be $\approx $ 0.77, while values of
178 < $\approx $0.92 were more common for the ice. The tetrahedrality profiles were
178 > $\approx $ 0.92 were more common for the ice. The tetrahedrality profiles were
179   fit using a hyperbolic tangent\cite{Louden13} designed to smoothly fit the
180   bulk to ice
181   transition, while accounting for the thermal influence on the profile by the
182   kinetic energy exchanges of the VSS-RNEMD moves. In panels $b$ and $c$, the
183 < imposed thermal and velocity gradients can be seen. The verticle dotted
183 > resulting thermal and velocity gradients from the imposed kinetic energy and
184 > momentum fluxes can be seen. The verticle dotted
185   lines traversing all three panels indicate the midpoints of the interface
186   as determined by the hyperbolic tangent fit of the tetrahedrality profiles.
187  
188   From fitting the tetrahedrality profiles for each of the 0.5 nanosecond
189   simulations (panel c of Figures \ref{fig:spComic} and \ref{fig:pyrComic})
190   by Eq. 6\cite{Louden13},we find the interfacial width to be
191 < $3.2 \pm 0.2$ and $3.2 \pm 0.2$ \AA\ for the control system with no applied
192 < momentum flux for both the pyramidal and secondary prism systems.
191 > 3.2 $\pm$ 0.2 and 3.2 $\pm$ 0.2 \AA\ for the control system with no applied
192 > momentum flux for both the pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems.
193   Over the range of shear rates investigated,
194 < $0.6 \pm 0.2 \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 5.6 \pm 0.4 \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for
195 < the pyramidal system and $0.9 \pm 0.3 \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 5.4 \pm 0.1
196 < \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the secondary prism, we found no significant change in
197 < the interfacial width. This follows our previous findings of the basal and
194 > 0.6 $\pm$ 0.2 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 5.6 $\pm$ 0.4 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$
195 > for the pyramidal system and 0.9 $\pm$ 0.3 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 5.4
196 > $\pm$ 0.1 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the secondary prismatic, we found no
197 > significant change in the interfacial width. This follows our previous
198 > findings of the basal and
199   prismatic systems, in which the interfacial width was invarient of the
200   shear rate of the ice. The interfacial width of the quiescent basal and
201 < prismatic systems was found to be $3.2 \pm 0.4$ \AA\ and $3.6 \pm 0.2$ \AA\
202 < respectively. Over the range of shear rates investigated, $0.6 \pm 0.3
203 < \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 5.3 \pm 0.5 \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the basal
204 < system and $0.9 \pm 0.2 \mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow 4.5 \pm 0.1
205 < \mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the prismatic.
201 > prismatic systems was found to be 3.2 $\pm$ 0.4 \AA\ and 3.6 $\pm$ 0.2 \AA\
202 > respectively, over the range of shear rates investigated, 0.6 $\pm$ 0.3
203 > $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 5.3 $\pm$ 0.5 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the basal
204 > system and 0.9 $\pm$ 0.2 $\mathrm{ms}^{-1} \rightarrow$ 4.5 $\pm$ 0.1
205 > $\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ for the prismatic.
206  
207   These results indicate that the surface structure of the exposed ice crystal
208   has little to no effect on how far into the bulk the ice-like structural
# Line 222 | Line 229 | by an additional 200 ps microcanonical (NVE) simulatio
229   wide, and \eqref{C(t)1} was computed for each of the bins. A water
230   molecule was allocated to a particular bin if it was initially in the bin
231   at time zero. To compute \eqref{C(t)1}, each 0.5 ns simulation was followed
232 < by an additional 200 ps microcanonical (NVE) simulation during which the
232 > by an additional 200 ps NVE simulation during which the
233   position and orientations of each molecule were recorded every 0.1 ps.
234  
235   The data obtained for each bin was then fit to a triexponential decay given by
# Line 252 | Line 259 | approximate values for the decays and relative trends
259   in panel a, we see that $\tau_{short}$ decreases from the liquid value
260   of $72-76$ fs as we approach the interface. We believe this speed up is due to
261   the constrained motion of librations closer to the interface. Both the
262 < approximate values for the decays and relative trends  match those reported
263 < previously for the basal and prismatic interfaces.
262 > approximate values for the decays and trends approaching the interface  match
263 > those reported previously for the basal and prismatic interfaces.
264  
265   As done previously, we have attempted to quantify the distance, $d_{pyramidal}$
266 < and $d_{secondary prism}$, from the
266 > and $d_{secondary prismatic}$, from the
267   interface that the deviations from the bulk liquid values begin. This was done
268   by fitting the orientational decay constant $z$-profiles by
269   \begin{equation}\label{tauFit}
270 < \tau(z)\approx\tau_{liquid}+(\tau_{solid}-\tau_{liquid})e^{-(z-z_{wall})/d}
270 > \tau(z)\approx\tau_{liquid}+(\tau_{wall}-\tau_{liquid})e^{-(z-z_{wall})/d}
271   \end{equation}
272 < where $\tau_{liquid}$ and $\tau_{solid}$ are the liquid and projected solid
272 > where $\tau_{liquid}$ and $\tau_{wall}$ are the liquid and projected wall
273   values of the decay constants, $z_{wall}$ is the location of the interface,
274   and $d$ is the displacement from the interface at which these deviations
275   occur. The values for $d_{pyramidal}$ and $d_{secondary prismatic}$ were
276   determined
277   for each of the decay constants, and then averaged for better statistics
278 < ($\tau_{middle}$ was ommitted for secondary prism). For the pyramidal system,
278 > ($\tau_{middle}$ was ommitted for secondary prismatic). For the pyramidal
279 > system,
280   $d_{pyramidal}$ was found to be 2.7 \AA\ for both the control and the sheared
281   system. We found $d_{secondary prismatic}$ to be slightly larger than
282   $d_{pyramidal}$ for both the control and with an applied shear, with
# Line 285 | Line 293 | shear viscosity at 225 K. The interfacial friction coe
293   arrises from the sharp discontinuity of the viscosity for the SPC/E model
294   at temperatures approaching 200 K\cite{kuang12}. Due to this, we propose
295   a weighting to the interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$ by the
296 < shear viscosity at 225 K. The interfacial friction coefficient relates
297 < the shear stress with the relative velocity of the fluid normal to the
296 > shear viscosity of the fluid at 225 K. The interfacial friction coefficient
297 > relates the shear stress with the relative velocity of the fluid normal to the
298   interface:
299   \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-13}
300   j_{z}(p_{x}) = \kappa[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]
# Line 295 | Line 303 | fluid can be determined if we assume a linear response
303   in the
304   $x$-dimension, and $v_{x}$(fluid) and $v_{x}$(solid) are the velocities
305   directly adjacent to the interface. The shear viscosity, $\eta(T)$, of the
306 < fluid can be determined if we assume a linear response of the momentum
306 > fluid can be determined under a linear response of the momentum
307   gradient to the applied shear stress by
308   \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-11}
309   j_{z}(p_{x}) = \eta(T) \frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}.
# Line 312 | Line 320 | To obtain the value of $\eta(225)$ for the SPC/E model
320   \end{equation}
321  
322   To obtain the value of $\eta(225)$ for the SPC/E model, a $31.09 \times 29.38
323 < \times 124.39$ \AA\ box with 3744 SPC/E water molecules was equilibrated to
324 < 225K,
323 > \times 124.39$ \AA\ box with 3744 SPC/E liquid water molecules was
324 > equilibrated to 225K,
325   and 5 unique shearing experiments were performed. Each experiment was
326 < conducted in the microcanonical ensemble (NVE) and were 5 ns in
326 > conducted in the NVE and were 5 ns in
327   length. The VSS were attempted every timestep, which was set to 2 fs.
328 < For our SPC/E systems, we found $\eta(225)$  to be $0.0148 \pm 0.0007$ Pa s,
328 > For our SPC/E systems, we found $\eta(225)$  to be 0.0148 $\pm$ 0.0007 Pa s,
329   roughly ten times larger than the value found for 280 K SPC/E bulk water by
330   Kuang\cite{kuang12}.
331  
# Line 338 | Line 346 | similar values of $\kappa \approx$ 0.0006
346   found for the four crystal facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ investigated are shown
347   in Table \ref{tab:kapa}. The basal and pyramidal facets were found to have
348   similar values of $\kappa \approx$ 0.0006
349 < (amu \AA\ \textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}), while $\kappa \approx$
350 < 0.0003 (amu \AA\ \textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}) were found for
351 < the prismatic and secondary prismatic systems.
352 < These results indicate that the prismatic and secondary prismatic facets are
353 < more hydrophobic than the basal and pyramidal facets.
349 > (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}), while values of
350 > $\kappa \approx$ 0.0003 (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})
351 > were found for the prismatic and secondary prismatic systems.
352 > These results indicate that the basal and pyramidal facets are
353 > more hydrophilic than the prismatic and secondary prismatic facets.
354   %This indicates something about the similarity between the two facets that
355   %share similar values...
356   %Maybe find values for kappa for other materials to compare against?
# Line 353 | Line 361 | prismatic facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$}
361   prismatic facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$}
362   \label{tab:kappa}
363   \begin{tabular}{|ccc|}  \hline
364 <           & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\kappa_{Drag direction}$ (amu \AA\ \textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})} \\
364 >           & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\kappa_{Drag direction}$ (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})} \\
365   Interface & $\kappa_{x}$     & $\kappa_{y}$   \\ \hline
366       basal & $0.00059 \pm 0.00003$ & $0.00065 \pm 0.00008$ \\
367   prismatic & $0.00030 \pm 0.00002$ & $0.00030 \pm 0.00001$ \\
368   pyramidal & $0.00058 \pm 0.00004$ & $0.00061 \pm 0.00005$ \\
369 < secondary prism & $0.00035 \pm 0.00001$ & $0.00033 \pm 0.00002$ \\ \hline
369 > secondary prismatic & $0.00035 \pm 0.00001$ & $0.00033 \pm 0.00002$ \\ \hline
370   \end{tabular}
371   \end{table}
372  
# Line 378 | Line 386 | prismatic facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$}
386   % prismatic (T = 225)\textsuperscript{a} & $0.037 \pm 0.008$ & $0.04 \pm 0.01$ \\
387   % prismatic (T = 230) & $0.10 \pm 0.01$ & $0.070 \pm 0.006$\\
388   % pyramidal & $0.13 \pm 0.03$   & $0.14 \pm 0.03$ \\
389 < % secondary prism & $0.13 \pm 0.02$ & $0.12 \pm 0.03$ \\ \hline
389 > % secondary prismatic & $0.13 \pm 0.02$ & $0.12 \pm 0.03$ \\ \hline
390   %\end{tabular}
391   %\end{table}
392  
# Line 402 | Line 410 | prism face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig
410   \begin{figure}
411   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SP-orient-less}
412   \caption{\label{fig:SPorient} Decay constants for $C_2(t)$ at the secondary
413 < prism face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig:PyrOrient}.}
413 > prismatic face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig:PyrOrient}.}
414   \end{figure}
415  
416  
# Line 412 | Line 420 | interface by using the minimal perturbing VSS RNEMD me
420   and secondary prismatic facets of an SPC/E model of the
421   Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water interface. The ice was sheared through the liquid
422   water while being exposed to a thermal gradient to maintain a stable
423 < interface by using the minimal perturbing VSS RNEMD method. In agreement with
424 < our previous findings for the basal and prismatic facets, the interfacial
423 > interface by using the minimally perturbing VSS RNEMD method. In agreement
424 > with our previous findings for the basal and prismatic facets, the interfacial
425   width was found to be independent of shear rate as measured by the local
426   tetrahedral order parameter. This width was found to be
427 < 3.2~$\pm$0.2~\AA\ for both the pyramidal and the secondary prismatic systems.
427 > 3.2~$\pm$ 0.2~\AA\ for both the pyramidal and the secondary prismatic systems.
428   These values are in good agreement with our previously calculated interfacial
429 < widths for the basal (3.2~$\pm$0.4~\AA\ ) and prismatic (3.6~$\pm$0.2~\AA\ )
429 > widths for the basal (3.2~$\pm$ 0.4~\AA\ ) and prismatic (3.6~$\pm$ 0.2~\AA\ )
430   systems.
431  
432   Orientational dynamics of the Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water interfaces were studied
# Line 436 | Line 444 | We had previously found $d_{basal}$ and $d_{prismatic}
444   work on the basal and prismatic facets, there appears to be a dynamic
445   interface width at which deviations from the bulk liquid values occur.
446   We had previously found $d_{basal}$ and $d_{prismatic}$ to be approximately
447 < 2.8~\AA\ and 3.5~\AA\~. We found good agreement of these values for the
447 > 2.8~\AA\ and 3.5~\AA. We found good agreement of these values for the
448   pyramidal and secondary prismatic systems with $d_{pyramidal}$ and
449 < $d_{secondary prism}$ to be 2.7~\AA\ and 3~\AA\~. For all of the facets, there
450 < was found to be no apparent dependence of the dynamic width on the shear rate.
449 > $d_{secondary prismatic}$ to be 2.7~\AA\ and 3~\AA. For all four of the
450 > facets, no apparent dependence of the dynamic width on the shear rate was
451 > found.
452    
453   %Paragraph summarizing the Kappa values
454 < The interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$, was determined for each of the
455 < interfaces. We were able to reach an expression for $\kappa$ as a function of
456 < the velocity profile of the system and is scaled by the viscosity of the liquid
454 > The interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$, was determined for each facet
455 > interface. We were able to reach an expression for $\kappa$ as a function of
456 > the velocity profile of the system which is scaled by the viscosity of the liquid
457   at 225 K. In doing so, we have obtained an expression for $\kappa$ which is
458   independent of temperature differences of the liquid water at far displacements
459   from the interface. We found the basal and pyramidal facets to have
460   similar $\kappa$ values, of $\kappa \approx$ 0.0006
461 < (amu \AA\ \textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}). However, the
461 > (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}). However, the
462   prismatic and secondary prismatic facets were found to have $\kappa$ values of
463 < $\kappa \approx$ 0.0003 (amu \AA\ \textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}).
463 > $\kappa \approx$ 0.0003 (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}).
464   As these ice facets are being sheared relative to liquid water, with the
465   structural and dynamic width of all four
466   interfaces being approximately the same, the difference in the coefficient of

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines