ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/iceWater2/iceWater3.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/iceWater2/iceWater3.tex (file contents):
Revision 4245 by gezelter, Wed Dec 10 20:49:40 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4246 by plouden, Thu Dec 11 01:24:49 2014 UTC

# Line 82 | Line 82 | three interfaces involved, and is given by Young's
82   droplet can spread out over the surface. The contact angle formed
83   between the solid and the liquid depends on the free energies of the
84   three interfaces involved, and is given by Young's
85 < equation.\cite{Young}
85 > equation.\cite{Young05}
86   \begin{equation}\label{young}
87   \cos\theta = (\gamma_{sv} - \gamma_{sl})/\gamma_{lv} .
88   \end{equation}
# Line 100 | Line 100 | superhydrophobic, $\theta \ge 150^{\circ}$, to hydroph
100   the hydrophilicity to a surprising degree.  Small changes in the
101   heights and widths of nano-pillars can change a surface from
102   superhydrophobic, $\theta \ge 150^{\circ}$, to hydrophilic, $\theta
103 < \sim 0^{\circ}$.\cite{CBW} This is often referred to as the
103 > \sim 0^{\circ}$.\cite{Koishi09} This is often referred to as the
104   Cassie-Baxter to Wenzel transition.  Nano-pillared surfaces with
105   electrically tunable Cassie-Baxter and Wenzel states have also been
106   observed.\cite{Herbertson06,Dhindsa06,Verplanck07,Ahuja08,Manukyan11}
# Line 191 | Line 191 | equilibrated at 225K, which is the liquid-ice coexiste
191   carving out any liquid water molecules within 3 \AA\ of any atoms in
192   the ice slabs.  Each of the combined ice/water systems were then
193   equilibrated at 225K, which is the liquid-ice coexistence temperature
194 < for SPC/E water.\cite{} Ref. \citealp{Louden13} contains a more
194 > for SPC/E water.\cite{Bryk02} Ref. \citealp{Louden13} contains a more
195   detailed explanation of the construction of ice/water interfaces. The
196   resulting dimensions, number of ice, and liquid water molecules
197   contained in each of these systems can be seen in Table
198   \ref{tab:method}.
199  
200 < We used SPC/E Why?  Extensively characterized over a wide range of
201 < liquid conditions.  Well-studied phase diagram. Reasonably accurate
202 < crystalline free energies.  Mostly avoids spurious crystalline
203 < morphologies like ice-i and ice-B.  Most importantly, the use of SPC/E
204 < has been well characterized in previous ice/water interfacial studies.
200 > Mostly avoids spurious crystalline morphologies like ice-i and ice-B.  
201  
202 <
203 <
204 < There has been extensive work parameterizing good models for liquid
205 < water over a wide range of conditions.  The melting points of various
206 < crystal structures of ice have been calculated for many of these
207 < models (SPC\cite{Karim90,Abascal07},
212 < SPC/E\cite{Baez95,Arbuckle02,Gay02,Bryk02,Bryk04b,Sanz04b,Fernandez06,Abascal07,Vrbka07},
213 < TIP4P\cite{Karim88,Gao00,Sanz04,Sanz04b,Koyama04,Wang05,Fernandez06,Abascal07},
214 < TIP5P\cite{Sanz04,Koyama04,Wang05,Fernandez06,Abascal07}), and the
215 < partial or complete phase diagram for the model has been determined
216 < (SPC/E\cite{Baez95,Bryk04b,Sanz04b},
217 < TIP4P\cite{Sanz04,Sanz04b,Koyama04}, TIP5P\cite{Sanz04,Koyama04}).
218 <
219 <
220 < such as the SPC\cite{Berendsen81}, SPC/E\cite{Berendsen87},
221 < TIP4P\cite{Jorgensen85}, TIP4P/2005\cite{Abascal05}, ($\dots$), and
222 < more recently, models for simulating the solid phases of water, such
223 < as the TIP4P/Ice\cite{Abascal05b} model.
224 <
202 > The SPC/E water model\cite{Berendsen87} has been extensively
203 > characterized over a wide range of liquid
204 > conditions,\cite{Arbuckle02, Kuang12} and its phase diagram has been well studied.\cite{Baez95,Bryk04b,Sanz04b}  
205 > The free energies \cite{Baez95} and melting points
206 > \cite{Baez95,Arbuckle02,Gay02,Bryk02,Bryk04b,Sanz04b,Fernandez06,Abascal07,Vrbka07}
207 > of various crystal structures have also been calculated.
208   Haymet et al. have studied the quiescent Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$/water
209 < interface using the rigid SPC, SPC/E, TIP4P, and the flexible CF1
210 < water models, and has seen good agreement for structural and dynamic
211 < measurements of the interfacial width. Given the expansive size of our
212 < systems of interest, and the apparent independence of water model on
230 < interfacial width, we have chosen to use the rigid SPC/E water model
231 < in this study.
209 > interface using the SPC/E water model, and has seen good agreement for
210 > structural and dynamic measurements of the interfacial width when compared with more
211 > expensive water models. For these reasons, the SPC/E water
212 > model was used in this study.
213  
214   \subsection{Shearing simulations (interfaces in bulk water)}
215   % Should we mention number of runs, sim times, etc. ?
# Line 252 | Line 233 | secondary prismatic simulations were performed under t
233   secondary prismatic simulations were performed under the NVE ensamble.
234  
235   \subsection{Droplet simulations}
236 < Ice interfaces with a thickness of $\sim 30 \AA$ were created as
236 > Ice interfaces with a thickness of $\sim 20 \AA$ were created as
237   described above, but were not solvated in a liquid box. The crystals
238   were then replicated along the $x$ and $y$ axes (parallel to the
239   surface) until a large surface had been created.  The sizes and
240   numbers of molecules in each of the surfaces is given in Table
241   \ref{tab:ice_sheets}.  Weak translational restraining potentials with
242 < spring constants of XXXX were applied to the center of mass of each
242 > spring constants of 1.5 to 4.0 UNITS were applied to the center of mass of each
243   molecule in order to prevent surface melting, although the molecules
244   were allowed to reorient freely. A water doplet containing 2048 SPC/E
245   molecules was created separately. Droplets of this size can produce
# Line 271 | Line 252 | and $y$ locations for each of these simulations.  Each
252   5 ns in length and conducted in the microcanonical (NVE) ensemble.
253  
254   \section{Results and discussion}
255 + \subsection{Dynamic water contact angle}
256 +
257 + To determine the extent of wetting for each of the four crystal
258 + facets, water contact angle simuations were performed. Contact angles
259 + were obtained from these simulations by two methods. In the first
260 + method, the contact angle was obtained from the $z$-center of mass
261 + ($z_{c.m.}$) of the water droplet as described by Hautman and Klein\cite{Hautman91}
262 + and utilized by Hirvi and Pakkanen in their investigation of water
263 + droplets on polyethylene and poly(vinyl chloride)
264 + surface\cite{Hirvi06}. At each snapshot of the simulation, the contact
265 + angle, $\theta$, was found by
266 + \begin{equation}\label{contact_1}
267 + \langle z_{c.m.}\rangle = 2^{-4/3}R_{0}\bigg(\frac{1-cos\theta}{2+cos\theta}\bigg)^{1/3}\frac{3+cos\theta}{2+cos\theta} ,
268 + \end{equation}
269 + where $R_{0}$ is the radius of the free water droplet. In the second
270 + method, the contact angle was obtained from fitting the droplet's
271 + $z$-profile after radial averaging to a
272 + circle as described by Ruijter, Blake, and
273 + Coninck\cite{Ruijter99}. At each snapshot of the simulation the water droplet was
274 + broken into bins, and the location of bin containing half-bulk density was
275 + stored. Due to fluctuations close to the ice, all bins located within
276 + 2.0 \AA\ of the ice were discarded. The remaining stored bins were
277 + then fit by a circle, whose tangential intersection with the ice plane could
278 + be used to calculate the water
279 + contact angle. These results proved noisey and unreliable when
280 + compared with the first method, for these purposes we omit the data
281 + from the second method.
282 +
283 + The resulting water contact angle profiles generated by the first method
284 + had an initial value of 180$^{o}$, and decayed over time. Each of
285 + these profiles were fit to a biexponential decay, with a short time
286 + piece to account for the water droplet initially adhering to the
287 + surface, a long time piece describing the spreading of the droplet
288 + over the surface, and an added constant to capture the infinite
289 + decay of the contact angle. We have found that the rate of the water
290 + droplet spreading across all four crystal facets to be $\approx$ 0.7
291 + ns$^{-1}$. However, the basal and pyramidal facets
292 + had an infinite decay value for $\theta$ of $\approx$ 35$^{o}$, while
293 + prismatic and secondary prismatic had values for $\theta$ near
294 + 43$^{o}$ as seen in Table \ref{tab:kappa}. These results indicate that the
295 + basal and pyramidal facets are more hydrophilic than the prismatic and
296 + secondary prismatic, and surprisingly, that the differential hydrophilicities of
297 + the crystal facets is not reflected in the spreading rate of the droplet.
298 + % This is in good agreement with our calculations of friction
299 + % coefficients, in which the basal
300 + % and pyramidal had a higher coefficient of kinetic friction than the
301 + % prismatic and secondary prismatic. Due to this, we beleive that the
302 + % differences in friction coefficients can be attributed to the varying
303 + % hydrophilicities of the facets.
304 +
305 + \subsection{Coefficient of friction of the interfaces}
306 + While investigating the kinetic coefficient of friction, there was found
307 + to be a dependence for $\mu_k$
308 + on the temperature of the liquid water in the system. We believe this
309 + dependence
310 + arrises from the sharp discontinuity of the viscosity for the SPC/E model
311 + at temperatures approaching 200 K\cite{Kuang12}. Due to this, we propose
312 + a weighting to the interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$ by the
313 + shear viscosity of the fluid at 225 K. The interfacial friction coefficient
314 + relates the shear stress with the relative velocity of the fluid normal to the
315 + interface:
316 + \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-13}
317 + j_{z}(p_{x}) = \kappa[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]
318 + \end{equation}
319 + where $j_{z}(p_{x})$ is the applied momentum flux (shear stress) across $z$
320 + in the
321 + $x$-dimension, and $v_{x}$(fluid) and $v_{x}$(solid) are the velocities
322 + directly adjacent to the interface. The shear viscosity, $\eta(T)$, of the
323 + fluid can be determined under a linear response of the momentum
324 + gradient to the applied shear stress by
325 + \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-11}
326 + j_{z}(p_{x}) = \eta(T) \frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}.
327 + \end{equation}
328 + Using eqs \eqref{Shenyu-13} and \eqref{Shenyu-11}, we can find the following
329 + expression for $\kappa$,
330 + \begin{equation}\label{kappa-1}
331 + \kappa = \eta(T) \frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}\frac{1}{[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]}.
332 + \end{equation}
333 + Here is where we will introduce the weighting term of $\eta(225)/\eta(T)$
334 + giving us
335 + \begin{equation}\label{kappa-2}
336 + \kappa = \frac{\eta(225)}{[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]}\frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}.
337 + \end{equation}
338 +
339 + To obtain the value of $\eta(225)$ for the SPC/E model, a $31.09 \times 29.38
340 + \times 124.39$ \AA\ box with 3744 SPC/E liquid water molecules was
341 + equilibrated to 225K,
342 + and 5 unique shearing experiments were performed. Each experiment was
343 + conducted in the NVE and were 5 ns in
344 + length. The VSS were attempted every timestep, which was set to 2 fs.
345 + For our SPC/E systems, we found $\eta(225)$  to be 0.0148 $\pm$ 0.0007 Pa s,
346 + roughly ten times larger than the value found for 280 K SPC/E bulk water by
347 + Kuang\cite{Kuang12}.
348 +
349 + The interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$, can equivalently be expressed
350 + as the ratio of the viscosity of the fluid to the slip length, $\delta$, which
351 + is an indication of how 'slippery' the interface is.
352 + \begin{equation}\label{kappa-3}
353 + \kappa = \frac{\eta}{\delta}
354 + \end{equation}
355 + In each of the systems, the interfacial temperature was kept fixed to 225K,
356 + which ensured the viscosity of the fluid at the
357 + interace was approximately the same. Thus, any significant variation in
358 + $\kappa$ between
359 + the systems indicates differences in the 'slipperiness' of the interfaces.
360 + As each of the ice systems are sheared relative to liquid water, the
361 + 'slipperiness' of the interface can be taken as an indication of how
362 + hydrophobic or hydrophilic the interface is. The calculated $\kappa$ values
363 + found for the four crystal facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ investigated are shown
364 + in Table \ref{tab:kappa}. The basal and pyramidal facets were found to have
365 + similar values of $\kappa \approx$ 0.0006
366 + (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}), while values of
367 + $\kappa \approx$ 0.0003 (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})
368 + were found for the prismatic and secondary prismatic systems.
369 + These results indicate that the basal and pyramidal facets are
370 + more hydrophilic than the prismatic and secondary prismatic facets.
371 +
372   \subsection{Interfacial width}
373   In the literature there is good agreement that between the solid ice and
374   the bulk water, there exists a region of 'slush-like' water molecules.
# Line 287 | Line 385 | VSS-RNEMD perturbations to the system. Due to this, we
385   the systems, parameters that depend on translational motion may give
386   faulty results. A stuructural parameter will be less effected by the
387   VSS-RNEMD perturbations to the system. Due to this, we have used the
388 < local tetrahedral order parameter (Eq 5\cite{Louden13} to quantify the width of the interface,
388 > local tetrahedral order parameter (Eq 5\cite{Louden13}) to quantify the width of the interface,
389   which was originally described by Kumar\cite{Kumar09} and
390   Errington\cite{Errington01}, and used by Bryk and Haymet in a previous study
391   of ice/water interfaces.\cite{Bryk04b}
# Line 302 | Line 400 | $\approx $ 0.92 were more common for the ice. The tetr
400   (0,1), where a larger value indicates a more tetrahedral environment.
401   The $q(z)$ for the bulk liquid was found to be $\approx $ 0.77, while values of
402   $\approx $ 0.92 were more common for the ice. The tetrahedrality profiles were
403 < fit using a hyperbolic tangent\cite{Louden13} designed to smoothly fit the
403 > fit using a hyperbolic tangent (Eq. 6\cite{Louden13}) designed to smoothly fit the
404   bulk to ice
405   transition, while accounting for the thermal influence on the profile by the
406   kinetic energy exchanges of the VSS-RNEMD moves. In panels $b$ and $c$, the
# Line 407 | Line 505 | those found for the basal ($d_{basal}\approx2.9$ \AA\
505   those found for the basal ($d_{basal}\approx2.9$ \AA\ ) and prismatic
506   ($d_{prismatic}\approx3.5$ \AA\ ) systems.
507  
410 \subsection{Coefficient of friction of the interfaces}
411 While investigating the kinetic coefficient of friction, there was found
412 to be a dependence for $\mu_k$
413 on the temperature of the liquid water in the system. We believe this
414 dependence
415 arrises from the sharp discontinuity of the viscosity for the SPC/E model
416 at temperatures approaching 200 K\cite{Kuang12}. Due to this, we propose
417 a weighting to the interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$ by the
418 shear viscosity of the fluid at 225 K. The interfacial friction coefficient
419 relates the shear stress with the relative velocity of the fluid normal to the
420 interface:
421 \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-13}
422 j_{z}(p_{x}) = \kappa[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]
423 \end{equation}
424 where $j_{z}(p_{x})$ is the applied momentum flux (shear stress) across $z$
425 in the
426 $x$-dimension, and $v_{x}$(fluid) and $v_{x}$(solid) are the velocities
427 directly adjacent to the interface. The shear viscosity, $\eta(T)$, of the
428 fluid can be determined under a linear response of the momentum
429 gradient to the applied shear stress by
430 \begin{equation}\label{Shenyu-11}
431 j_{z}(p_{x}) = \eta(T) \frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}.
432 \end{equation}
433 Using eqs \eqref{Shenyu-13} and \eqref{Shenyu-11}, we can find the following
434 expression for $\kappa$,
435 \begin{equation}\label{kappa-1}
436 \kappa = \eta(T) \frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}\frac{1}{[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]}.
437 \end{equation}
438 Here is where we will introduce the weighting term of $\eta(225)/\eta(T)$
439 giving us
440 \begin{equation}\label{kappa-2}
441 \kappa = \frac{\eta(225)}{[v_{x}(fluid)-v_{x}(solid)]}\frac{\partial v_{x}}{\partial z}.
442 \end{equation}
508  
444 To obtain the value of $\eta(225)$ for the SPC/E model, a $31.09 \times 29.38
445 \times 124.39$ \AA\ box with 3744 SPC/E liquid water molecules was
446 equilibrated to 225K,
447 and 5 unique shearing experiments were performed. Each experiment was
448 conducted in the NVE and were 5 ns in
449 length. The VSS were attempted every timestep, which was set to 2 fs.
450 For our SPC/E systems, we found $\eta(225)$  to be 0.0148 $\pm$ 0.0007 Pa s,
451 roughly ten times larger than the value found for 280 K SPC/E bulk water by
452 Kuang\cite{Kuang12}.
509  
454 The interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$, can equivalently be expressed
455 as the ratio of the viscosity of the fluid to the slip length, $\delta$, which
456 is an indication of how 'slippery' the interface is.
457 \begin{equation}\label{kappa-3}
458 \kappa = \frac{\eta}{\delta}
459 \end{equation}
460 In each of the systems, the interfacial temperature was kept fixed to 225K,
461 which ensured the viscosity of the fluid at the
462 interace was approximately the same. Thus, any significant variation in
463 $\kappa$ between
464 the systems indicates differences in the 'slipperiness' of the interfaces.
465 As each of the ice systems are sheared relative to liquid water, the
466 'slipperiness' of the interface can be taken as an indication of how
467 hydrophobic or hydrophilic the interface is. The calculated $\kappa$ values
468 found for the four crystal facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$ investigated are shown
469 in Table \ref{tab:kappa}. The basal and pyramidal facets were found to have
470 similar values of $\kappa \approx$ 0.0006
471 (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1}), while values of
472 $\kappa \approx$ 0.0003 (amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})
473 were found for the prismatic and secondary prismatic systems.
474 These results indicate that the basal and pyramidal facets are
475 more hydrophilic than the prismatic and secondary prismatic facets.
510  
477 \subsection{Dynamic water contact angle}
478
479 To determine the extent of wetting for each of the four crystal
480 facets, water contact angle simuations were performed. Contact angles
481 were obtained from these simulations by two methods. In the first
482 method, the contact angle was obtained from the $z$-center of mass
483 ($z_{c.m.}$) of the water droplet as described by Hautman and Klein\cite{Hautman91}
484 and utilized by Hirvi and Pakkanen in their investigation of water
485 droplets on polyethylene and poly(vinyl chloride)
486 surface\cite{Hirvi06}. At each snapshot of the simulation, the contact
487 angle, $\theta$, was found by
488 \begin{equation}\label{contact_1}
489 \langle z_{c.m.}\rangle = 2^{-4/3}R_{0}\bigg(\frac{1-cos\theta}{2+cos\theta}\bigg)^{1/3}\frac{3+cos\theta}{2+cos\theta} ,
490 \end{equation}
491 where $R_{0}$ is the radius of the free water droplet. In the second
492 method, the contact angle was obtained from fitting the droplet's
493 $z$-profile after radial averaging to a
494 circle as described by Ruijter, Blake, and
495 Coninck\cite{Ruijter99}. At each snapshot of the simulation the water droplet was
496 broken into bins, and the location of bin containing half-bulk density was
497 stored. Due to fluctuations close to the ice, all bins located within
498 2.0 \AA\ of the ice were discarded. The remaining stored bins were
499 then fit by a circle, whose tangential intersection with the ice plane could
500 be used to calculate the water
501 contact angle. These results proved noisey and unreliable when
502 compared with the first method, for these purposes we omit the data
503 from the second method.
511  
505 The resulting water contact angle profiles generated by the first method
506 had an initial value of 180$^{o}$, and decayed over time. Each of
507 these profiles were fit to a biexponential decay, with a short time
508 piece to account for the water droplet initially adhering to the
509 surface, a long time piece describing the spreading of the droplet
510 over the surface, and an additive constant to capture the infinite
511 decay of the contact angle. We have found that the rate of the water
512 droplet spreading across all four crystal facets to be $\approx$ 0.7
513 ns$^{-1}$. However, the basal and pyramidal facets
514 had an infinite decay value for $\theta$ of $\approx$ 35$^{o}$, while
515 prismatic and secondary prismatic had values for $\theta$ near
516 43$^{o}$ as seen in Table \ref{tab:kappa}. This indicates that the
517 basal and pyramidal facets are more hydrophilic than the prismatic and
518 secondary prismatic. This is in good agreement
519 with our calculations of friction coefficients, in which the basal
520 and pyramidal had a higher coefficient of kinetic friction than the
521 prismatic and secondary prismatic. Due to this, we beleive that the
522 differences in friction coefficients can be attributed to the varying
523 hydrophilicities of the facets.
524
512   \section{Conclusion}
513   We present the results of molecular dynamics simulations of the basal,
514   prismatic, pyrmaidal
# Line 778 | Line 765 | prismatic face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref
765  
766   \begin{table}[h]
767   \centering
768 < \caption{Phyiscal properties of the basal, prismatic, pyramidal, and secondary prismatic facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$}
769 < \label{tab:kappa}
770 < \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}  \hline
771 <           & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\kappa_{Drag direction}$
772 <             (x10\textsuperscript{-4} amu \AA\textsuperscript{-2} fs\textsuperscript{-1})} & & \\
773 < Interface & $\kappa_{x}$     & $\kappa_{y}$  & $\theta_{\infty}$ & $K_{spread} (ns^{-1})$   \\ \hline
774 <     basal & $5.9 \pm 0.3$ & $6.5 \pm 0.8$ & $34.1 \pm 0.9$ & $0.60 \pm 0.07$  \\
775 < pyramidal & $5.8 \pm 0.4$ & $6.1 \pm 0.5$ & $35 \pm 3$ & $0.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
776 < prismatic & $3.0 \pm 0.2$ & $3.0 \pm 0.1$ & $45 \pm 3$ & $0.75 \pm 0.09$ \\
777 < secondary prismatic & $3.5 \pm 0.1$ & $3.3 \pm 0.2$ & $42 \pm 2$ & $0.69 \pm 0.03$ \\ \hline
768 > \caption{Droplet and Shearing simulation parameters}
769 > \label{tab:method}
770 > \begin{tabular}{|cccc|ccc|} \hline
771 > & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Droplet} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Shearing}\\
772 > Interface & $N_{ice}$ & $N_{droplet}$ & Lx, Ly (\AA) &
773 > $N_{ice}$ & $N_{liquid}$ & Lx, Ly, Lz (\AA) \\ \hline
774 > Basal & 12960& 2048 & (134.70, 140.04) & 900 & 1846 & (23.87, 35.83, 98.64)\\
775 > Prismatic & 9900& 2048 & (110.04, 115.00) & 3000 & 5464 &
776 > (35.95, 35.65, 205.77)\\
777 > Pyramidal & 11136 & 2048& (143.75, 121.41) & 1216 & 2203 &
778 > (143.75, 121.41)\\
779 > Secondary Prismatic & 11520 & 2048 & (146.72, 124.48) & 3840 &
780 > 8176 & (71.87, 31.66, 161.55)\\
781 > \hline
782   \end{tabular}
783   \end{table}
784  
785  
786   \begin{table}[h]
787   \centering
788 < \caption{Shearing and Droplet simulation parameters}
789 < \label{tab:method}
790 < \begin{tabular}{|cccc|ccc|} \hline
791 < & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Shearing} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Droplet}\\
792 < Interface & $N_{ice}$ & $N_{liquid}$ & Lx, Ly, Lz (\AA) &
793 < $N_{ice}$ & $N_{droplet}$ & Lx, Ly (\AA) \\ \hline
794 < Basal & 900 & 1846 & (23.87, 35.83, 98.64) & 12960 & 2048 & (134.70, 140.04)\\
795 < Prismatic & 3000 & 5464 & (35.95, 35.65, 205.77) & 9900 & 2048 &
796 < (110.04, 115.00)\\
797 < Pyramidal & 1216 & 2203& (37.47, 29.50, 93.02) & 11136 & 2048 &
798 < (143.75, 121.41)\\
799 < Secondary Prismatic & 3840 & 8176 & (71.87, 31.66, 161.55) & 11520 &
800 < 2048 & (146.72, 124.48)\\
801 < \hline
788 > \caption{Phyiscal properties of the basal, prismatic, pyramidal, and secondary prismatic facets of Ice-I$_\mathrm{h}$}
789 > \label{tab:kappa}
790 > \begin{tabular}{|ccc|cccc|}  \hline
791 > & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Droplet} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Shearing}\\
792 > Interface & $\theta^{\circ}_{\infty}$  & $K_{spread} (ns^{-1})$  &
793 > $\kappa_{x}$  & $\kappa_{y}$ & d$_{q_{z}}$ (\AA) &  d$_{\tau}$ (\AA)  \\ \hline
794 > Basal & $34.1 \pm 0.9$ &$0.60 \pm 0.07$ & $5.9 \pm 0.3$&$6.5 \pm 0.8$
795 > & $3.2 \pm 0.4$ & $2.9$  \\
796 > Pyramidal & $35 \pm 3$ &  $0.7 \pm 0.1$ & $5.8 \pm 0.4$ & $6.1 \pm
797 > 0.5$ & $3.2 \pm 0.2$ & $2.7$ \\
798 > Prismatic & $45 \pm 3$ & $0.75 \pm 0.09$ & $3.0 \pm 0.2$ & $3.0 \pm
799 > 0.1$ & $3.6 \pm 0.2$ & $3.5$ \\
800 > Secondary Prismatic & $42 \pm 2$ & $0.69 \pm 0.03$ & $3.5 \pm 0.1$ &
801 > $3.3 \pm 0.2$ & $3.2 \pm 0.2$ & $3$ \\ \hline
802   \end{tabular}
803   \end{table}
804  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines