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

Comparing trunk/nanoglass/experimental.tex (file contents):
Revision 3222 by chuckv, Tue Sep 11 15:23:24 2007 UTC vs.
Revision 3261 by chuckv, Mon Oct 15 21:02:43 2007 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1 + %!TEX root = /Users/charles/Desktop/nanoglass/nanoglass.tex
2 +
3   \section{Computational Methodology}
4   \label{sec:details}
5  
# Line 5 | Line 7 | $\mathrm{Ag}_6\mathrm{Cu}_4$.  Three different sizes o
7  
8   Cu-core / Ag-shell and random alloy structures were constructed on an
9   underlying FCC lattice (4.09 {\AA}) at the bulk eutectic composition
10 < $\mathrm{Ag}_6\mathrm{Cu}_4$.  Three different sizes of nanoparticles
11 < corresponding to a 20 \AA radius (1961 atoms), 30 {\AA} radius (6603
12 < atoms) and 40 {\AA} radius (15683 atoms) were constructed.  These
13 < initial structures were relaxed to their equilibrium structures at 20
14 < K for 20 ps and again at 300 K for 100 ps sampling from a
15 < Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at each temperature.
10 > $\mathrm{Ag}_6\mathrm{Cu}_4$.  Both initial geometries were considered
11 > although experimental results suggest that the random structure is the
12 > most likely structure to be found following
13 > synthesis.\cite{Jiang:2005lr,gonzalo:5163} Three different sizes of
14 > nanoparticles corresponding to a 20 \AA radius (1961 atoms), 30 {\AA}
15 > radius (6603 atoms) and 40 {\AA} radius (15683 atoms) were
16 > constructed.  These initial structures were relaxed to their
17 > equilibrium structures at 20 K for 20 ps and again at 300 K for 100 ps
18 > sampling from a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at each
19 > temperature. All simulations were conducted using the {\sc oopse}
20 > molecular dynamics package.\cite{Meineke:2004uq}
21  
22   To mimic the effects of the heating due to laser irradiation, the
23   particles were allowed to melt by sampling velocities from the Maxwell
# Line 29 | Line 36 | the nanoparticle evolved under Langevin Dynamics with
36   To approximate the effects of rapid heat transfer to the solvent
37   following a heating at the plasmon resonance, we utilized a
38   methodology in which atoms contained in the outer $4$ {\AA} radius of
39 < the nanoparticle evolved under Langevin Dynamics with a solvent
40 < friction approximating the contribution from the solvent and capping
41 < agent.  Atoms located in the interior of the nanoparticle evolved
42 < under Newtonian dynamics.  The set-up of our simulations is nearly
43 < identical with the ``stochastic boundary molecular dynamics'' ({\sc
44 < sbmd}) method that has seen wide use in the protein simulation
39 > the nanoparticle evolved under Langevin Dynamics,
40 > \begin{equation}
41 > m \frac{\partial^2 \vec{x}}{\partial t^2} = F_\textrm{sys}(\vec{x}(t))
42 > - 6 \pi a \eta \vec{v}(t)  + F_\textrm{ran}
43 > \label{eq:langevin}
44 > \end{equation}
45 > with a solvent friction ($\eta$) approximating the contribution from
46 > the solvent and capping agent.  Atoms located in the interior of the
47 > nanoparticle evolved under Newtonian dynamics.  The set-up of our
48 > simulations is nearly identical with the ``stochastic boundary
49 > molecular dynamics'' ({\sc sbmd}) method that has seen wide use in the
50 > protein simulation
51   community.\cite{BROOKS:1985kx,BROOKS:1983uq,BRUNGER:1984fj} A sketch
52 < of this setup can be found in Fig. \ref{fig:langevinSketch}.  For a
53 < spherical atom of radius $a$, the Langevin frictional forces can be
54 < determined by Stokes' law
55 < \begin{equation}
56 < \mathbf{F}_{\mathrm{frictional}}=6\pi a \eta \mathbf{v}
52 > of this setup can be found in Fig. \ref{fig:langevinSketch}.  In
53 > Eq. (\ref{eq:langevin}) the frictional forces of a spherical atom
54 > of radius $a$ depend on the solvent viscosity.  The random forces are
55 > usually taken as gaussian random variables with zero mean and a
56 > variance tied to the solvent viscosity and temperature,
57 > \begin{equation}
58 > \langle F_\textrm{ran}(t) \cdot F_\textrm{ran} (t')
59 > \rangle = 2 k_B T (6 \pi \eta a) \delta(t - t')
60 > \label{eq:stochastic}
61   \end{equation}
62 < where $\eta$ is the effective viscosity of the solvent in which the
63 < particle is embedded.  Due to the presence of the capping agent and
64 < the lack of details about the atomic-scale interactions between the
65 < 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.
62 > Due to the presence of the capping agent and the lack of details about
63 > the atomic-scale interactions between the metallic atoms and the
64 > solvent, the effective viscosity is a essentially a free parameter
65 > that must be tuned to give experimentally relevant simulations.
66   \begin{figure}[htbp]
67   \centering
68 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/stochbound.pdf}
69 < \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.}
68 > \includegraphics[width=5in]{images/stochbound.pdf}
69 > \caption{Methodology used to mimic the experimental cooling conditions
70 > of a hot nanoparticle surrounded by a solvent.  Atoms in the core of
71 > the particle evolved under Newtonian dynamics, while atoms that were
72 > in the outer skin of the particle evolved under Langevin dynamics.
73 > The radius of the spherical region operating under Newtonian dynamics,
74 > $r_\textrm{Newton}$ was set to be 4 {\AA} smaller than the original
75 > radius ($R$) of the liquid droplet.}
76   \label{fig:langevinSketch}
77   \end{figure}
78 +
79   The viscosity ($\eta$) can be tuned by comparing the cooling rate that
80   a set of nanoparticles experience with the known cooling rates for
81 < those particles obtained via the laser heating experiments.
81 > similar particles obtained via the laser heating experiments.
82   Essentially, we tune the solvent viscosity until the thermal decay
83   profile matches a heat-transfer model using reasonable values for the
84   interfacial conductance and the thermal conductivity of the solvent.
85  
86   Cooling rates for the experimentally-observed nanoparticles were
87   calculated from the heat transfer equations for a spherical particle
88 < embedded in a ambient medium that allows for diffusive heat
89 < transport. The heat transfer model is a set of two coupled
90 < differential equations in the Laplace domain,
88 > embedded in a ambient medium that allows for diffusive heat transport.
89 > Following Plech {\it et al.},\cite{plech:195423} we use a heat
90 > transfer model that consists of two coupled differential equations
91 > in the Laplace domain,
92   \begin{eqnarray}
93   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\\
94   \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} T_{f}(r,s)\right)_{r=R} +
# Line 90 | Line 113 | Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform}.
113   \end{equation}
114   For simplicity, we have introduced the thermal diffusivity $\kappa =
115   K/(\rho c)$,  and defined $k=4\pi R^3 \rho c /(M c_p)$ and $g = G/K$ in
116 < Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform}.
116 > Eq. (\ref{eq:laplacetransform}).
117  
118 < Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform} was solved numerically for the Ag-Cu
118 > Eq. (\ref{eq:laplacetransform}) was solved numerically for the Ag-Cu
119   system using mole-fraction weighted values for $c_p$ and $\rho_p$ of
120   0.295 $(\mathrm{J g^{-1} K^{-1}})$ and $9.826\times 10^6$ $(\mathrm{g
121   m^{-3}})$ respectively. Since most of the laser excitation experiments
122   have been done in aqueous solutions, parameters used for the fluid are
123 < $K$ of $0.6$  $(\mathrm{Wm^{-1}K^{-1}})$, $\rho$ of $1.0\times10^6$ $(\mathrm{g
124 < m^{-3}})$ and $c$ of $4.184$ $(\mathrm{J g^{-1} K^{-1}})$.
123 > $K$ of $0.6$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-1}K^{-1}})$, $\rho$ of $1.0\times10^6$
124 > $(\mathrm{g m^{-3}})$ and $c$ of $4.184$ $(\mathrm{J g^{-1} K^{-1}})$.
125  
126   Values for the interfacial conductance have been determined by a
127   number of groups for similar nanoparticles and range from a low
128 < $87.5\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ to $120\times 10^{6}$
129 < $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.\cite{hartlandPrv2007} Plech {\it et al.} reported a value for the interfacial conductance of $G=105\pm 15$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ and
130 < $G=130\pm 15$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ for Pt nanoparticles.\cite{plech:195423,PhysRevB.66.224301}
128 > $87.5\times 10^{6} (\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ to $130\times 10^{6}
129 > (\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.\cite{Wilson:2002uq} Wilson {\it
130 > et al.}  worked with Au, Pt, and AuPd nanoparticles and obtained an
131 > estimate for the interfacial conductance of $G=130
132 > (\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.\cite{Wilson:2002uq} Similarly, Plech {\it
133 > et al.}  reported a value for the interfacial conductance of $G=105\pm
134 > 15 (\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ for Au nanoparticles.\cite{plech:195423}
135  
136   We conducted our simulations at both ends of the range of
137   experimentally-determined values for the interfacial conductance.
# Line 115 | Line 142 | experiments on Au nanospheres, we believe that the tru
142   the fastest heat transfer, a value of $117\times 10^{6}$
143   $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ was used.  Based on calculations we have
144   done using raw data from the Hartland group's thermal half-time
145 < experiments on Au nanospheres, we believe that the true G values are
146 < closer to the faster regime: $117\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.
145 > experiments on Au nanospheres,\cite{HuM._jp020581+} the true G values
146 > are probably in the faster regime: $117\times 10^{6}$
147 > $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.
148  
121
149   The rate of cooling for the nanoparticles in a molecular dynamics
150   simulation can then be tuned by changing the effective solvent
151   viscosity ($\eta$) until the nanoparticle cooling rate matches the
152 < cooling rate described by the heat-transfer equations
153 < (\ref{eq:heateqn}). The effective solvent viscosity (in poise) for a G
154 < of $87.5\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ is 0.17, 0.20, and
155 < 0.22 for 20 {\AA}, 30 {\AA}, and 40 {\AA} particles, respectively. The
156 < effective solvent viscosity (again in poise) for an interfacial
157 < conductance of $117\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ is 0.23,
158 < 0.29, and 0.30 for 20 {\AA}, 30 {\AA} and 40 {\AA} particles.  Cooling
159 < traces for each particle size are presented in
152 > cooling rate described by the heat-transfer Eq.
153 > (\ref{eq:heateqn}). The effective solvent viscosity (in Pa s) for a G
154 > of $87.5\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ is $4.2 \times
155 > 10^{-6}$, $5.0 \times 10^{-6}$, and
156 > $5.5 \times 10^{-6}$ for 20 {\AA}, 30 {\AA}, and 40 {\AA} particles, respectively. The
157 > effective solvent viscosity (again in Pa s) for an interfacial
158 > conductance of $117\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ is $5.7
159 > \times 10^{-6}$, $7.2 \times 10^{-6}$, and $7.5 \times 10^{-6}$
160 > for 20 {\AA}, 30 {\AA} and 40 {\AA} particles.  These viscosities are
161 > essentially gas-phase values, a fact which is consistent with the
162 > initial temperatures of the particles being well into the
163 > super-critical region for the aqueous environment.  Gas bubble
164 > generation has also been seen experimentally around gold nanoparticles
165 > in water.\cite{kotaidis:184702} Instead of a single value for the
166 > effective viscosity, a time-dependent parameter might be a better
167 > mimic of the cooling vapor layer that surrounds the hot particles.
168 > This may also be a contributing factor to the size-dependence of the
169 > effective viscosities in our simulations.
170 >
171 > Cooling traces for each particle size are presented in
172   Fig. \ref{fig:images_cooling_plot}. It should be noted that the
173   Langevin thermostat produces cooling curves that are consistent with
174   Newtonian (single-exponential) cooling, which cannot match the cooling
175 < profiles from Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform} exactly.
175 > profiles from Eq. (\ref{eq:laplacetransform}) exactly. Fitting the
176 > Langevin cooling profiles to a single-exponential produces
177 > $\tau=25.576$ ps, $\tau=43.786$ ps, and $\tau=56.621$ ps for the 20,
178 > 30 and 40 {\AA} nanoparticles and a G of $87.5\times 10^{6}$
179 > $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$.  For comparison's sake, similar
180 > single-exponential fits with an interfacial conductance of G of
181 > $117\times 10^{6}$ $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$ produced a $\tau=13.391$
182 > ps, $\tau=30.426$ ps, $\tau=43.857$ ps for the 20, 30 and 40 {\AA}
183 > nanoparticles.
184  
185   \begin{figure}[htbp]
186   \centering
187 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/cooling_plot.pdf}
187 > \includegraphics[width=5in]{images/cooling_plot.pdf}
188   \caption{Thermal cooling curves obtained from the inverse Laplace
189 < transform heat model in Eq. \ref{eq:laplacetransform} (solid line) as
189 > transform heat model in Eq. (\ref{eq:laplacetransform}) (solid line) as
190   well as from molecular dynamics simulations (circles).  Effective
191 < solvent viscosities of 0.23-0.30 poise (depending on the radius of the
192 < particle) give the best fit to the experimental cooling curves.  Since
193 < this viscosity is substantially in excess of the viscosity of liquid
194 < water, much of the thermal transfer to the surroundings is probably
195 < due to the capping agent.}
191 > solvent viscosities of 4.2-7.5 $\times 10^{-6}$ Pa s (depending on the
192 > radius of the particle) give the best fit to the experimental cooling
193 > curves.  This viscosity suggests that the nanoparticles in these
194 > experiments are surrounded by a vapor layer (which is a reasonable
195 > assumptions given the initial temperatures of the particles).  }
196   \label{fig:images_cooling_plot}
197   \end{figure}
198  
# Line 157 | Line 204 | nanoparticles.\cite{Vardeman-II:2001jn,ShibataT._ja026
204   Embedded Atom Model ({\sc eam})~\cite{PhysRevB.33.7983} and
205   Sutton-Chen ({\sc sc})~\cite{Chen90} potential have been used to study
206   a wide range of phenomena in both bulk materials and
207 < nanoparticles.\cite{Vardeman-II:2001jn,ShibataT._ja026764r} Both
207 > nanoparticles.\cite{Vardeman-II:2001jn,ShibataT._ja026764r,Sankaranarayanan:2005lr,Chui:2003fk,Wang:2005qy,Medasani:2007uq} Both
208   potentials are based on a model of a metal which treats the nuclei and
209   core electrons as pseudo-atoms embedded in the electron density due to
210   the valence electrons on all of the other atoms in the system. The
# Line 189 | Line 236 | liquid alloy.\cite{MURRAY:1984lr} Combination rules fo
236   data for both FCC solid solutions of Ag-Cu and the high-temperature
237   liquid.\cite{sheng:184203} In contrast, the {\sc eam} potential does
238   not reproduce the experimentally observed heat of mixing for the
239 < liquid alloy.\cite{MURRAY:1984lr} Combination rules for the alloy were
240 < taken to be the arithmatic average of the atomic parameters with the
241 < exception of $c_i$ since its values is only dependent on the identity
242 < of the atom where the density is evaluated.  For the {\sc q-sc}
243 < potential, cutoff distances are traditionally taken to be
244 < $2\alpha_{ij}$ and include up to the sixth coordination shell in FCC
245 < metals.
239 > liquid alloy.\cite{MURRAY:1984lr} In this work, we have utilized the
240 > {\sc q-sc} formulation for our potential energies and forces.
241 > Combination rules for the alloy were taken to be the arithmetic
242 > average of the atomic parameters with the exception of $c_i$ since its
243 > values is only dependent on the identity of the atom where the density
244 > is evaluated.  For the {\sc q-sc} potential, cutoff distances are
245 > traditionally taken to be $2\alpha_{ij}$ and include up to the sixth
246 > coordination shell in FCC metals.
247  
248 < \subsection{Sampling single-temperature configurations from a cooling
249 < trajectory}
248 > %\subsection{Sampling single-temperature configurations from a cooling
249 > %trajectory}
250  
251 < ffdsafjdksalfdsa
251 > To better understand the structural changes occurring in the
252 > nanoparticles throughout the cooling trajectory, configurations were
253 > sampled at regular intervals during the cooling trajectory. These
254 > configurations were then allowed to evolve under NVE dynamics to
255 > sample from the proper distribution in phase space. Fig.
256 > \ref{fig:images_cooling_time_traces} illustrates this sampling.
257 >
258 >
259 > \begin{figure}[htbp]
260 >        \centering
261 >                \includegraphics[height=3in]{images/cooling_time_traces.pdf}
262 >        \caption{Illustrative cooling profile for the 40 {\AA}
263 > nanoparticle evolving under stochastic boundary conditions
264 > corresponding to $G=$$87.5\times 10^{6}$
265 > $(\mathrm{Wm^{-2}K^{-1}})$. At temperatures along the cooling
266 > trajectory, configurations were sampled and allowed to evolve in the
267 > NVE ensemble. These subsequent trajectories were analyzed for
268 > structural features associated with bulk glass formation.}
269 >        \label{fig:images_cooling_time_traces}
270 > \end{figure}
271 >
272 >
273 > \begin{figure}[htbp]
274 > \centering
275 > \includegraphics[width=5in]{images/cross_section_array.jpg}
276 > \caption{Cutaway views of 30 \AA\ Ag-Cu nanoparticle structures for
277 > random alloy (top) and Cu (core) / Ag (shell) initial conditions
278 > (bottom).  Shown from left to right are the crystalline, liquid
279 > droplet, and final glassy bead configurations.}
280 > \label{fig:cross_sections}
281 > \end{figure}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines