ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/nanoglass/experimental.tex
Revision: 3222
Committed: Tue Sep 11 15:23:24 2007 UTC (17 years, 7 months ago) by chuckv
Content type: application/x-tex
File size: 11121 byte(s)
Log Message:
More writing on paper.

File Contents

# Content
1 \section{Computational Methodology}
2 \label{sec:details}
3
4 \subsection{Initial Geometries and Heating}
5
6 Cu-core / Ag-shell and random alloy structures were constructed on an
7 underlying FCC lattice (4.09 {\AA}) at the bulk eutectic composition
8 $\mathrm{Ag}_6\mathrm{Cu}_4$. Three different sizes of nanoparticles
9 corresponding to a 20 \AA radius (1961 atoms), 30 {\AA} radius (6603
10 atoms) and 40 {\AA} radius (15683 atoms) were constructed. These
11 initial structures were relaxed to their equilibrium structures at 20
12 K for 20 ps and again at 300 K for 100 ps sampling from a
13 Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at each temperature.
14
15 To mimic the effects of the heating due to laser irradiation, the
16 particles were allowed to melt by sampling velocities from the Maxwell
17 Boltzmann distribution at a temperature of 900 K. The particles were
18 run under microcanonical simulation conditions for 1 ns of simualtion
19 time prior to studying the effects of heat transfer to the solvent.
20 In all cases, center of mass translational and rotational motion of
21 the particles were set to zero before any data collection was
22 undertaken. Structural features (pair distribution functions) were
23 used to verify that the particles were indeed liquid droplets before
24 cooling simulations took place.
25
26 \subsection{Modeling random alloy and core shell particles in solution
27 phase environments}
28
29 To approximate the effects of rapid heat transfer to the solvent
30 following a heating at the plasmon resonance, we utilized a
31 methodology in which atoms contained in the outer $4$ {\AA} radius of
32 the nanoparticle evolved under Langevin Dynamics with a solvent
33 friction approximating the contribution from the solvent and capping
34 agent. Atoms located in the interior of the nanoparticle evolved
35 under Newtonian dynamics. The set-up of our simulations is nearly
36 identical with the ``stochastic boundary molecular dynamics'' ({\sc
37 sbmd}) method that has seen wide use in the protein simulation
38 community.\cite{BROOKS:1985kx,BROOKS:1983uq,BRUNGER:1984fj} A sketch
39 of this setup can be found in Fig. \ref{fig:langevinSketch}. For a
40 spherical atom of radius $a$, the Langevin frictional forces can be
41 determined by Stokes' law
42 \begin{equation}
43 \mathbf{F}_{\mathrm{frictional}}=6\pi a \eta \mathbf{v}
44 \end{equation}
45 where $\eta$ is the effective viscosity of the solvent in which the
46 particle is embedded. Due to the presence of the capping agent and
47 the lack of details about the atomic-scale interactions between the
48 metallic atoms and the solvent, the effective viscosity is a
49 essentially a free parameter that must be tuned to give experimentally
50 relevant simulations.
51 \begin{figure}[htbp]
52 \centering
53 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/stochbound.pdf}
54 \caption{Methodology for nanoparticle cooling. Equations of motion for metal atoms contained in the outer 4 {\AA} were determined by Langevins' Equations of motion. Metal atoms outside this region were allowed to evolve under Newtonian dynamics.}
55 \label{fig:langevinSketch}
56 \end{figure}
57 The viscosity ($\eta$) can be tuned by comparing the cooling rate that
58 a set of nanoparticles experience with the known cooling rates for
59 those particles obtained via the laser heating experiments.
60 Essentially, we tune the solvent viscosity until the thermal decay
61 profile matches a heat-transfer model using reasonable values for the
62 interfacial conductance and the thermal conductivity of the solvent.
63
64 Cooling rates for the experimentally-observed nanoparticles were
65 calculated from the heat transfer equations for a spherical particle
66 embedded in a ambient medium that allows for diffusive heat
67 transport. The heat transfer model is a set of two coupled
68 differential equations in the Laplace domain,
69 \begin{eqnarray}
70 Mc_{P}\cdot(s\cdot T_{p}(s)-T_{0})+4\pi R^{2} G\cdot(T_{p}(s)-T_{f}(r=R,s)=0\\
71 \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} T_{f}(r,s)\right)_{r=R} +
72 \frac{G}{K}(T_{p}(s)-T_{f}(r,s) = 0
73 \label{eq:heateqn}
74 \end{eqnarray}
75 where $s$ is the time-conjugate variable in Laplace space. The
76 variables in these equations describe a nanoparticle of radius $R$,
77 mass $M$, and specific heat $c_{p}$ at an initial temperature
78 $T_0$. The surrounding solvent has a thermal profile $T_f(r,t)$,
79 thermal conductivity $K$, density $\rho$, and specific heat $c$. $G$
80 is the interfacial conductance between the nanoparticle and the
81 surrounding solvent, and contains information about heat transfer to
82 the capping agent as well as the direct metal-to-solvent heat loss.
83 The temperature of the nanoparticle as a function of time can then
84 obtained by the inverse Laplace transform,
85 \begin{equation}
86 T_{p}(t)=\frac{2 k R^2 g^2
87 T_0}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\exp(-\kappa u^2
88 t/R^2)u^2}{(u^2(1 + R g) - k R g)^2+(u^3 - k R g u)^2}\mathrm{d}u.
89 \label{eq:laplacetransform}
90 \end{equation}
91 For simplicity, we have introduced the thermal diffusivity $\kappa =
92 K/(\rho c)$, and defined $k=4\pi R^3 \rho c /(M c_p)$ and $g = G/K$ in
93 Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform}.
94
95 Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform} was solved numerically for the Ag-Cu
96 system using mole-fraction weighted values for $c_p$ and $\rho_p$ of
97 0.295 $(\mathrm{J g^{-1} K^{-1}})$ and $9.826\times 10^6$ $(\mathrm{g
98 m^{-3}})$ respectively. Since most of the laser excitation experiments
99 have been done in aqueous solutions, parameters used for the fluid are
100 $K$ of $0.6$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-1}K^{-1}})$, $\rho$ of $1.0\times10^6$ $(\mathrm{g
101 m^{-3}})$ and $c$ of $4.184$ $(\mathrm{J g^{-1} K^{-1}})$.
102
103 Values for the interfacial conductance have been determined by a
104 number of groups for similar nanoparticles and range from a low
105 $87.5\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ to $120\times 10^{6}$
106 $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.\cite{hartlandPrv2007} Plech {\it et al.} reported a value for the interfacial conductance of $G=105\pm 15$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ and
107 $G=130\pm 15$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ for Pt nanoparticles.\cite{plech:195423,PhysRevB.66.224301}
108
109 We conducted our simulations at both ends of the range of
110 experimentally-determined values for the interfacial conductance.
111 This allows us to observe both the slowest and fastest heat transfers
112 from the nanoparticle to the solvent that are consistent with
113 experimental observations. For the slowest heat transfer, a value for
114 G of $87.5\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ was used and for
115 the fastest heat transfer, a value of $117\times 10^{6}$
116 $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ was used. Based on calculations we have
117 done using raw data from the Hartland group's thermal half-time
118 experiments on Au nanospheres, we believe that the true G values are
119 closer to the faster regime: $117\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.
120
121
122 The rate of cooling for the nanoparticles in a molecular dynamics
123 simulation can then be tuned by changing the effective solvent
124 viscosity ($\eta$) until the nanoparticle cooling rate matches the
125 cooling rate described by the heat-transfer equations
126 (\ref{eq:heateqn}). The effective solvent viscosity (in poise) for a G
127 of $87.5\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ is 0.17, 0.20, and
128 0.22 for 20 {\AA}, 30 {\AA}, and 40 {\AA} particles, respectively. The
129 effective solvent viscosity (again in poise) for an interfacial
130 conductance of $117\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ is 0.23,
131 0.29, and 0.30 for 20 {\AA}, 30 {\AA} and 40 {\AA} particles. Cooling
132 traces for each particle size are presented in
133 Fig. \ref{fig:images_cooling_plot}. It should be noted that the
134 Langevin thermostat produces cooling curves that are consistent with
135 Newtonian (single-exponential) cooling, which cannot match the cooling
136 profiles from Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform} exactly.
137
138 \begin{figure}[htbp]
139 \centering
140 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/cooling_plot.pdf}
141 \caption{Thermal cooling curves obtained from the inverse Laplace
142 transform heat model in Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform} (solid line) as
143 well as from molecular dynamics simulations (circles). Effective
144 solvent viscosities of 0.23-0.30 poise (depending on the radius of the
145 particle) give the best fit to the experimental cooling curves. Since
146 this viscosity is substantially in excess of the viscosity of liquid
147 water, much of the thermal transfer to the surroundings is probably
148 due to the capping agent.}
149 \label{fig:images_cooling_plot}
150 \end{figure}
151
152 \subsection{Potentials for classical simulations of bimetallic
153 nanoparticles}
154
155 Several different potential models have been developed that reasonably
156 describe interactions in transition metals. In particular, the
157 Embedded Atom Model ({\sc eam})~\cite{PhysRevB.33.7983} and
158 Sutton-Chen ({\sc sc})~\cite{Chen90} potential have been used to study
159 a wide range of phenomena in both bulk materials and
160 nanoparticles.\cite{Vardeman-II:2001jn,ShibataT._ja026764r} Both
161 potentials are based on a model of a metal which treats the nuclei and
162 core electrons as pseudo-atoms embedded in the electron density due to
163 the valence electrons on all of the other atoms in the system. The
164 {\sc sc} potential has a simple form that closely resembles that of
165 the ubiquitous Lennard Jones potential,
166 \begin{equation}
167 \label{eq:SCP1}
168 U_{tot}=\sum _{i}\left[ \frac{1}{2}\sum _{j\neq i}D_{ij}V^{pair}_{ij}(r_{ij})-c_{i}D_{ii}\sqrt{\rho_{i}}\right] ,
169 \end{equation}
170 where $V^{pair}_{ij}$ and $\rho_{i}$ are given by
171 \begin{equation}
172 \label{eq:SCP2}
173 V^{pair}_{ij}(r)=\left( \frac{\alpha_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\right)^{n_{ij}}, \rho_{i}=\sum_{j\neq i}\left( \frac{\alpha_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\right) ^{m_{ij}}.
174 \end{equation}
175 $V^{pair}_{ij}$ is a repulsive pairwise potential that accounts for
176 interactions between the pseudoatom cores. The $\sqrt{\rho_i}$ term in
177 Eq. (\ref{eq:SCP1}) is an attractive many-body potential that models
178 the interactions between the valence electrons and the cores of the
179 pseudo-atoms. $D_{ij}$, $D_{ii}$ set the appropriate overall energy
180 scale, $c_i$ scales the attractive portion of the potential relative
181 to the repulsive interaction and $\alpha_{ij}$ is a length parameter
182 that assures a dimensionless form for $\rho$. These parameters are
183 tuned to various experimental properties such as the density, cohesive
184 energy, and elastic moduli for FCC transition metals. The quantum
185 Sutton-Chen ({\sc q-sc}) formulation matches these properties while
186 including zero-point quantum corrections for different transition
187 metals.\cite{PhysRevB.59.3527} This particular parametarization has
188 been shown to reproduce the experimentally available heat of mixing
189 data for both FCC solid solutions of Ag-Cu and the high-temperature
190 liquid.\cite{sheng:184203} In contrast, the {\sc eam} potential does
191 not reproduce the experimentally observed heat of mixing for the
192 liquid alloy.\cite{MURRAY:1984lr} Combination rules for the alloy were
193 taken to be the arithmatic average of the atomic parameters with the
194 exception of $c_i$ since its values is only dependent on the identity
195 of the atom where the density is evaluated. For the {\sc q-sc}
196 potential, cutoff distances are traditionally taken to be
197 $2\alpha_{ij}$ and include up to the sixth coordination shell in FCC
198 metals.
199
200 \subsection{Sampling single-temperature configurations from a cooling
201 trajectory}
202
203 ffdsafjdksalfdsa