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

Comparing trunk/nivsRnemd/nivsRnemd.tex (file contents):
Revision 3530 by skuang, Thu Oct 1 00:01:03 2009 UTC vs.
Revision 3589 by skuang, Thu Apr 15 19:42:05 2010 UTC

# Line 38 | Line 38 | Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
38   \begin{doublespace}
39  
40   \begin{abstract}
41 <
41 >  We present a new method for introducing stable non-equilibrium
42 >  velocity and temperature distributions in molecular dynamics
43 >  simulations of heterogeneous systems.  This method extends some
44 >  earlier Reverse Non-Equilibrium Molecular Dynamics (RNEMD) methods
45 >  which use momentum exchange swapping moves that can create
46 >  non-thermal velocity distributions (and which are difficult to use
47 >  for interfacial calculations).  By using non-isotropic velocity
48 >  scaling (NIVS) on the molecules in specific regions of a system, it
49 >  is possible to impose momentum or thermal flux between regions of a
50 >  simulation and stable thermal and momentum gradients can then be
51 >  established.  The scaling method we have developed conserves the
52 >  total linear momentum and total energy of the system.  To test the
53 >  methods, we have computed the thermal conductivity of model liquid
54 >  and solid systems as well as the interfacial thermal conductivity of
55 >  a metal-water interface.  We find that the NIVS-RNEMD improves the
56 >  problematic velocity distributions that develop in other RNEMD
57 >  methods.
58   \end{abstract}
59  
60   \newpage
# Line 49 | Line 65 | Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
65   %                          BODY OF TEXT
66   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67  
52
53
68   \section{Introduction}
69   The original formulation of Reverse Non-equilibrium Molecular Dynamics
70   (RNEMD) obtains transport coefficients (thermal conductivity and shear
71   viscosity) in a fluid by imposing an artificial momentum flux between
72   two thin parallel slabs of material that are spatially separated in
73 < the simulation cell.\cite{MullerPlathe:1997xw,Muller-Plathe:1999ek} The
74 < artificial flux is typically created by periodically "swapping" either
75 < the entire momentum vector $\vec{p}$ or single components of this
76 < vector ($p_x$) between molecules in each of the two slabs.  If the two
77 < slabs are separated along the z coordinate, the imposed flux is either
78 < directional ($J_z(p_x)$) or isotropic ($J_z$), and the response of a
79 < simulated system to the imposed momentum flux will typically be a
80 < velocity or thermal gradient.  The transport coefficients (shear
81 < viscosity and thermal conductivity) are easily obtained by assuming
82 < linear response of the system,
73 > the simulation cell.\cite{MullerPlathe:1997xw,ISI:000080382700030} The
74 > artificial flux is typically created by periodically ``swapping''
75 > either the entire momentum vector $\vec{p}$ or single components of
76 > this vector ($p_x$) between molecules in each of the two slabs.  If
77 > the two slabs are separated along the $z$ coordinate, the imposed flux
78 > is either directional ($j_z(p_x)$) or isotropic ($J_z$), and the
79 > response of a simulated system to the imposed momentum flux will
80 > typically be a velocity or thermal gradient (Fig. \ref{thermalDemo}).
81 > The shear viscosity ($\eta$) and thermal conductivity ($\lambda$) are
82 > easily obtained by assuming linear response of the system,
83   \begin{eqnarray}
84 < J_z(p_x) & = & -\eta \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial z}\\
85 < J & = & \lambda \frac{\partial T}{\partial z}
84 > j_z(p_x) & = & -\eta \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial z}\\
85 > J_z & = & \lambda \frac{\partial T}{\partial z}
86   \end{eqnarray}
87   RNEMD has been widely used to provide computational estimates of thermal
88   conductivities and shear viscosities in a wide range of materials,
89   from liquid copper to monatomic liquids to molecular fluids
90 < (e.g. ionic liquids).\cite{ISI:000246190100032}
90 > (e.g. ionic liquids).\cite{Bedrov:2000-1,Bedrov:2000,Muller-Plathe:2002,ISI:000184808400018,ISI:000231042800044,Maginn:2007,Muller-Plathe:2008,ISI:000258460400020,ISI:000258840700015,ISI:000261835100054}
91  
92 < RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD methods because
93 < it imposes what is typically difficult to measure (a flux or stress)
94 < and it is typically much easier to compute momentum gradients or
95 < strains (the response).  For similar reasons, RNEMD is also preferable
96 < to slowly-converging equilibrium methods for measuring thermal
97 < conductivity and shear viscosity (using Green-Kubo relations or the
98 < Helfand moment approach of Viscardy {\it et
92 > \begin{figure}
93 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalDemo}
94 > \caption{RNEMD methods impose an unphysical transfer of momentum or
95 >  kinetic energy between a ``hot'' slab and a ``cold'' slab in the
96 >  simulation box.  The molecular system responds to this imposed flux
97 >  by generating a momentum or temperature gradient.  The slope of the
98 >  gradient can then be used to compute transport properties (e.g.
99 >  shear viscosity and thermal conductivity).}
100 > \label{thermalDemo}
101 > \end{figure}
102 >
103 > RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD methods
104 > \cite{ISI:A1988Q205300014} because it imposes what is typically
105 > difficult to measure (a flux or stress) and it is typically much
106 > easier to compute momentum gradients or strains (the response).  For
107 > similar reasons, RNEMD is also preferable to slowly-converging
108 > equilibrium methods for measuring thermal conductivity and shear
109 > viscosity (using Green-Kubo relations [CITATIONS NEEDED]
110 > or the Helfand moment approach of Viscardy {\it et
111    al.}\cite{Viscardy:2007bh,Viscardy:2007lq}) because these rely on
112   computing difficult to measure quantities.
113  
# Line 91 | Line 117 | Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some probl
117   typically samples from the same manifold of states in the
118   microcanonical ensemble.
119  
120 < Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some problems with the
121 < original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large momentum fluxes
122 < (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the slabs) can result
123 < in "notched", "peaked" and generally non-thermal momentum
124 < distributions in the two slabs, as well as non-linear thermal and
125 < velocity distributions along the direction of the imposed flux ($z$).
126 < Tenney and Maginn obtained reasonable limits on imposed flux and
127 < self-adjusting metrics for retaining the usability of the method.
120 > Recently, Tenney and Maginn\cite{Maginn:2010} have discovered
121 > some problems with the original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large
122 > momentum fluxes (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the
123 > slabs) can result in ``notched'', ``peaked'' and generally non-thermal
124 > momentum distributions in the two slabs, as well as non-linear thermal
125 > and velocity distributions along the direction of the imposed flux
126 > ($z$). Tenney and Maginn obtained reasonable limits on imposed flux
127 > and self-adjusting metrics for retaining the usability of the method.
128  
129   In this paper, we develop and test a method for non-isotropic velocity
130   scaling (NIVS-RNEMD) which retains the desirable features of RNEMD
131   (conservation of linear momentum and total energy, compatibility with
132   periodic boundary conditions) while establishing true thermal
133   distributions in each of the two slabs.  In the next section, we
134 < develop the method for determining the scaling constraints.  We then
134 > present the method for determining the scaling constraints.  We then
135   test the method on both single component, multi-component, and
136   non-isotropic mixtures and show that it is capable of providing
137   reasonable estimates of the thermal conductivity and shear viscosity
138   in these cases.
139  
140   \section{Methodology}
141 < We retain the basic idea of Muller-Plathe's RNEMD method; the periodic
142 < system is partitioned into a series of thin slabs along a particular
141 > We retain the basic idea of M\"{u}ller-Plathe's RNEMD method; the
142 > periodic system is partitioned into a series of thin slabs along one
143   axis ($z$).  One of the slabs at the end of the periodic box is
144   designated the ``hot'' slab, while the slab in the center of the box
145   is designated the ``cold'' slab.  The artificial momentum flux will be
# Line 121 | Line 147 | moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold
147   hot slab.
148  
149   Rather than using momentum swaps, we use a series of velocity scaling
150 < moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold slab,
150 > moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$  located within the cold slab,
151   \begin{equation}
152 < \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
153 < x \\
154 < y \\
155 < z \\
152 > \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
153 > x & 0 & 0 \\
154 > 0 & y & 0 \\
155 > 0 & 0 & z \\
156   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_i
157   \end{equation}
158   where ${x, y, z}$ are a set of 3 scaling variables for each of the
159   three directions in the system.  Likewise, the molecules $\{j\}$
160   located in the hot slab will see a concomitant scaling of velocities,
161   \begin{equation}
162 < \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
163 < x^\prime \\
164 < y^\prime \\
165 < z^\prime \\
162 > \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
163 > x^\prime & 0 & 0 \\
164 > 0 & y^\prime & 0 \\
165 > 0 & 0 & z^\prime \\
166   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_j
167   \end{equation}
168  
169   Conservation of linear momentum in each of the three directions
170 < ($\alpha = x,y,z$) ties the values of the hot and cold bin scaling
170 > ($\alpha = x,y,z$) ties the values of the hot and cold scaling
171   parameters together:
172   \begin{equation}
173   P_h^\alpha + P_c^\alpha = \alpha^\prime P_h^\alpha + \alpha P_c^\alpha
174   \end{equation}
175   where
176 < \begin{equation}
151 < \begin{array}{rcl}
176 > \begin{eqnarray}
177   P_c^\alpha & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N_c} m_i \left[\vec{v}_i\right]_\alpha \\
178 < P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j \left[\vec{v}_j\right]_\alpha \\
154 < \end{array}
178 > P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j \left[\vec{v}_j\right]_\alpha
179   \label{eq:momentumdef}
180 < \end{equation}
180 > \end{eqnarray}
181   Therefore, for each of the three directions, the hot scaling
182   parameters are a simple function of the cold scaling parameters and
183   the instantaneous linear momentum in each of the two slabs.
# Line 170 | Line 194 | Conservation of total energy also places constraints o
194   Conservation of total energy also places constraints on the scaling:
195   \begin{equation}
196   \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} K_h^\alpha + K_c^\alpha = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
197 < \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha.
197 > \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha
198   \end{equation}
199 < where the kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and $K_c^\alpha$, are computed
200 < for each of the three directions in a similar manner to the linear momenta
201 < (Eq. \ref{eq:momentumdef}).  Substituting in the expressions for the
202 < hot scaling parameters ($\alpha^\prime$) from Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}),
203 < we obtain the {\it constraint ellipsoid equation}:
199 > where the translational kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and
200 > $K_c^\alpha$, are computed for each of the three directions in a
201 > similar manner to the linear momenta (Eq. \ref{eq:momentumdef}).
202 > Substituting in the expressions for the hot scaling parameters
203 > ($\alpha^\prime$) from Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}), we obtain the
204 > {\it constraint ellipsoid}:
205   \begin{equation}
206 < \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha + c_\alpha = 0,
206 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha + c_\alpha = 0
207   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoid}
208   \end{equation}
209   where the constants are obtained from the instantaneous values of the
210   linear momenta and kinetic energies for the hot and cold slabs,
211 < \begin{equation}
187 < \begin{array}{rcl}
211 > \begin{eqnarray}
212   a_\alpha & = &\left(K_c^\alpha + K_h^\alpha
213    \left(p_\alpha\right)^2\right) \\
214   b_\alpha & = & -2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha \left( 1 + p_\alpha\right) \\
215 < c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha \\
192 < \end{array}
215 > c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha
216   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoidConsts}
217 < \end{equation}
218 < This ellipsoid equation defines the set of cold slab scaling
219 < parameters which can be applied while preserving both linear momentum
220 < in all three directions as well as kinetic energy.
217 > \end{eqnarray}
218 > This ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) defines the set of
219 > cold slab scaling parameters which can be applied while preserving
220 > both linear momentum in all three directions as well as total kinetic
221 > energy.
222  
223   The goal of using velocity scaling variables is to transfer linear
224   momentum or kinetic energy from the cold slab to the hot slab.  If the
225   hot and cold slabs are separated along the z-axis, the energy flux is
226   given simply by the decrease in kinetic energy of the cold bin:
227   \begin{equation}
228 < (1-x^2) K_c^x  + (1-y^2) K_c^y + (1-z^2) K_c^z = J_z
228 > (1-x^2) K_c^x  + (1-y^2) K_c^y + (1-z^2) K_c^z = J_z\Delta t
229   \end{equation}
230   The expression for the energy flux can be re-written as another
231   ellipsoid centered on $(x,y,z) = 0$:
232   \begin{equation}
233 < x^2 K_c^x + y^2 K_c^y + z^2 K_c^z = (K_c^x + K_c^y + K_c^z - J_z)
233 > x^2 K_c^x + y^2 K_c^y + z^2 K_c^z = K_c^x + K_c^y + K_c^z - J_z\Delta t
234   \label{eq:fluxEllipsoid}
235   \end{equation}
236 < The spatial extent of the {\it flux ellipsoid equation} is governed
237 < both by a targetted value, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values of the
238 < kinetic energy components in the cold bin.
236 > The spatial extent of the {\it thermal flux ellipsoid} is governed
237 > both by a targetted value, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values
238 > of the kinetic energy components in the cold bin.
239  
240   To satisfy an energetic flux as well as the conservation constraints,
241 < it is sufficient to determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
242 < the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
243 < flux ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of
244 < the two ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
241 > we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both the
242 > constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the flux
243 > ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of the
244 > two ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
245  
246 < One may also define momentum flux (say along the x-direction) as:
246 > \begin{figure}
247 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ellipsoids}
248 > \caption{Scaling points which maintain both constant energy and
249 >  constant linear momentum of the system lie on the surface of the
250 >  {\it constraint ellipsoid} while points which generate the target
251 >  momentum flux lie on the surface of the {\it flux ellipsoid}.  The
252 >  velocity distributions in the cold bin are scaled by only those
253 >  points which lie on both ellipsoids.}
254 > \label{ellipsoids}
255 > \end{figure}
256 >
257 > One may also define {\it momentum} flux (say along the $x$-direction) as:
258   \begin{equation}
259 < (1-x) P_c^x  = j_z(p_x)
259 > (1-x) P_c^x = j_z(p_x)\Delta t
260 > \label{eq:fluxPlane}
261   \end{equation}
262 + The above {\it momentum flux plane} is perpendicular to the $x$-axis,
263 + with its position governed both by a target value, $j_z(p_x)$ as well
264 + as the instantaneous value of the momentum along the $x$-direction.
265  
266 + In order to satisfy a momentum flux as well as the conservation
267 + constraints, we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
268 + the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
269 + flux plane (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}), i.e. the intersection of an
270 + ellipsoid and a plane in 3-dimensional space.  
271  
272 + In both the momentum and energy flux scenarios, valid scaling
273 + parameters are arrived at by solving geometric intersection problems
274 + in $x, y, z$ space in order to obtain cold slab scaling parameters.
275 + Once the scaling variables for the cold slab are known, the hot slab
276 + scaling has also been determined.
277  
278  
279 + The following problem will be choosing an optimal set of scaling
280 + variables among the possible sets. Although this method is inherently
281 + non-isotropic, the goal is still to maintain the system as isotropic
282 + as possible. Under this consideration, one would like the kinetic
283 + energies in different directions could become as close as each other
284 + after each scaling. Simultaneously, one would also like each scaling
285 + as gentle as possible, i.e. ${x,y,z \rightarrow 1}$, in order to avoid
286 + large perturbation to the system. Therefore, one approach to obtain
287 + the scaling variables would be constructing an criteria function, with
288 + constraints as above equation sets, and solving the function's minimum
289 + by method like Lagrange multipliers.
290  
291 + In order to save computation time, we have a different approach to a
292 + relatively good set of scaling variables with much less calculation
293 + than above. Here is the detail of our simplification of the problem.
294 +
295 + In the case of kinetic energy transfer, we impose another constraint
296 + ${x = y}$, into the equation sets. Consequently, there are two
297 + variables left. And now one only needs to solve a set of two {\it
298 +  ellipses equations}. This problem would be transformed into solving
299 + one quartic equation for one of the two variables. There are known
300 + generic methods that solve real roots of quartic equations. Then one
301 + can determine the other variable and obtain sets of scaling
302 + variables. Among these sets, one can apply the above criteria to
303 + choose the best set, while much faster with only a few sets to choose.
304 +
305 + In the case of momentum flux transfer, we impose another constraint to
306 + set the kinetic energy transfer as zero. In another word, we apply
307 + Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid} and let ${J_z = 0}$. After that, with one
308 + variable fixed by Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, one now have a similar set
309 + of equations on the above kinetic energy transfer problem. Therefore,
310 + an approach similar to the above would be sufficient for this as well.
311 +
312 + \section{Computational Details}
313 + \subsection{Lennard-Jones Fluid}
314 + Our simulation consists of a series of systems. All of these
315 + simulations were run with the OpenMD simulation software
316 + package\cite{Meineke:2005gd} integrated with RNEMD codes.
317 +
318 + A Lennard-Jones fluid system was built and tested first. In order to
319 + compare our method with swapping RNEMD, a series of simulations were
320 + performed to calculate the shear viscosity and thermal conductivity of
321 + argon. 2592 atoms were in a orthorhombic cell, which was ${10.06\sigma
322 +  \times 10.06\sigma \times 30.18\sigma}$ by size. The reduced density
323 + ${\rho^* = \rho\sigma^3}$ was thus 0.85, which enabled direct
324 + comparison between our results and others. These simulations used
325 + velocity Verlet algorithm with reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
326 +  4.6\times10^{-4}}$.
327 +
328 + For shear viscosity calculation, the reduced temperature was ${T^* =
329 +  k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$. Simulations were first equilibrated in canonical
330 + ensemble (NVT), then equilibrated in microcanonical ensemble
331 + (NVE). Establishing and stablizing momentum gradient were followed
332 + also in NVE ensemble. For the swapping part, Muller-Plathe's algorithm was
333 + adopted.\cite{ISI:000080382700030} The simulation box was under
334 + periodic boundary condition, and devided into ${N = 20}$ slabs. In each swap,
335 + the top slab ${(n = 1)}$ exchange the most negative $x$ momentum with the
336 + most positive $x$ momentum in the center slab ${(n = N/2 + 1)}$. Referred
337 + to Tenney {\it et al.}\cite{ISI:000273472300004}, a series of swapping
338 + frequency were chosen. According to each result from swapping
339 + RNEMD, scaling RNEMD simulations were run with the target momentum
340 + flux set to produce a similar momentum flux, and consequently shear
341 + rate. Furthermore, various scaling frequencies can be tested for one
342 + single swapping rate. To test the temperature homogeneity in our
343 + system of swapping and scaling methods, temperatures of different
344 + dimensions in all the slabs were observed. Most of the simulations
345 + include $10^5$ steps of equilibration without imposing momentum flux,
346 + $10^5$ steps of stablization with imposing unphysical momentum
347 + transfer, and $10^6$ steps of data collection under RNEMD. For
348 + relatively high momentum flux simulations, ${5\times10^5}$ step data
349 + collection is sufficient. For some low momentum flux simulations,
350 + ${2\times10^6}$ steps were necessary.
351 +
352 + After each simulation, the shear viscosity was calculated in reduced
353 + unit. The momentum flux was calculated with total unphysical
354 + transferred momentum ${P_x}$ and data collection time $t$:
355 + \begin{equation}
356 + j_z(p_x) = \frac{P_x}{2 t L_x L_y}
357 + \end{equation}
358 + where $L_x$ and $L_y$ denotes $x$ and $y$ lengths of the simulation
359 + box, and physical momentum transfer occurs in two ways due to our
360 + periodic boundary condition settings. And the velocity gradient
361 + ${\langle \partial v_x /\partial z \rangle}$ can be obtained by a
362 + linear regression of the velocity profile. From the shear viscosity
363 + $\eta$ calculated with the above parameters, one can further convert
364 + it into reduced unit ${\eta^* = \eta \sigma^2 (\varepsilon m)^{-1/2}}$.
365 +
366 + For thermal conductivity calculations, simulations were first run under
367 + reduced temperature ${\langle T^*\rangle = 0.72}$ in NVE
368 + ensemble. Muller-Plathe's algorithm was adopted in the swapping
369 + method. Under identical simulation box parameters with our shear
370 + viscosity calculations, in each swap, the top slab exchanges all three
371 + translational momentum components of the molecule with least kinetic
372 + energy with the same components of the molecule in the center slab
373 + with most kinetic energy, unless this ``coldest'' molecule in the
374 + ``hot'' slab is still ``hotter'' than the ``hottest'' molecule in the
375 + ``cold'' slab. According to swapping RNEMD results, target energy flux
376 + for scaling RNEMD simulations can be set. Also, various scaling
377 + frequencies can be tested for one target energy flux. To compare the
378 + performance between swapping and scaling method, distributions of
379 + velocity and speed in different slabs were observed.
380 +
381 + For each swapping rate, thermal conductivity was calculated in reduced
382 + unit. The energy flux was calculated similarly to the momentum flux,
383 + with total unphysical transferred energy ${E_{total}}$ and data collection
384 + time $t$:
385 + \begin{equation}
386 + J_z = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y}
387 + \end{equation}
388 + And the temperature gradient ${\langle\partial T/\partial z\rangle}$
389 + can be obtained by a linear regression of the temperature
390 + profile. From the thermal conductivity $\lambda$ calculated, one can
391 + further convert it into reduced unit ${\lambda^*=\lambda \sigma^2
392 +  m^{1/2} k_B^{-1}\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$.
393 +
394 + \subsection{ Water / Metal Thermal Conductivity}
395 + Another series of our simulation is the calculation of interfacial
396 + thermal conductivity of a Au/H$_2$O system. Respective calculations of
397 + liquid water (Extended Simple Point Charge model) and crystal gold
398 + thermal conductivity were performed and compared with current results
399 + to ensure the validity of NIVS-RNEMD. After that, a mixture system was
400 + simulated.
401 +
402 + For thermal conductivity calculation of bulk water, a simulation box
403 + consisting of 1000 molecules were first equilibrated under ambient
404 + pressure and temperature conditions using NPT ensemble, followed by
405 + equilibration in fixed volume (NVT). The system was then equilibrated in
406 + microcanonical ensemble (NVE). Also in NVE ensemble, establishing a
407 + stable thermal gradient was followed. The simulation box was under
408 + periodic boundary condition and devided into 10 slabs. Data collection
409 + process was similar to Lennard-Jones fluid system.
410 +
411 + Thermal conductivity calculation of bulk crystal gold used a similar
412 + protocol. Two types of force field parameters, Embedded Atom Method
413 + (EAM) and Quantum Sutten-Chen (QSC) force field were used
414 + respectively. The face-centered cubic crystal simulation box consists of
415 + 2880 Au atoms. The lattice was first allowed volume change to relax
416 + under ambient temperature and pressure. Equilibrations in canonical and
417 + microcanonical ensemble were followed in order. With the simulation
418 + lattice devided evenly into 10 slabs, different thermal gradients were
419 + established by applying a set of target thermal transfer flux. Data of
420 + the series of thermal gradients was collected for calculation.
421 +
422 + After simulations of bulk water and crystal gold, a mixture system was
423 + constructed, consisting of 1188 Au atoms and 1862 H$_2$O
424 + molecules. Spohr potential was adopted in depicting the interaction
425 + between metal atom and water molecule.\cite{ISI:000167766600035} A
426 + similar protocol of equilibration was followed. Several thermal
427 + gradients was built under different target thermal flux. It was found
428 + out that compared to our previous simulation systems, the two phases
429 + could have large temperature difference even under a relatively low
430 + thermal flux. Therefore, under our low flux conditions, it is assumed
431 + that the metal and water phases have respectively homogeneous
432 + temperature, excluding the surface regions. In calculating the
433 + interfacial thermal conductivity $G$, this assumptioin was applied and
434 + thus our formula becomes:
435 +
436 + \begin{equation}
437 + G = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y \left( \langle T_{gold}\rangle -
438 +    \langle T_{water}\rangle \right)}
439 + \label{interfaceCalc}
440 + \end{equation}
441 + where ${E_{total}}$ is the imposed unphysical kinetic energy transfer
442 + and ${\langle T_{gold}\rangle}$ and ${\langle T_{water}\rangle}$ are the
443 + average observed temperature of gold and water phases respectively.
444 +
445 + \section{Results And Discussions}
446 + \subsection{Thermal Conductivity}
447 + \subsubsection{Lennard-Jones Fluid}
448 + Our thermal conductivity calculations show that scaling method results
449 + agree with swapping method. Four different exchange intervals were
450 + tested (Table \ref{thermalLJRes}) using swapping method. With a fixed
451 + 10fs exchange interval, target exchange kinetic energy was set to
452 + produce equivalent kinetic energy flux as in swapping method. And
453 + similar thermal gradients were observed with similar thermal flux in
454 + two simulation methods (Figure \ref{thermalGrad}).
455 +
456 + \begin{table*}
457 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
458 + \begin{center}
459 +
460 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of Lennard-Jones
461 +  fluid at ${\langle T^* \rangle = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with
462 +  swap and scale methods at various kinetic energy exchange rates. Results
463 +  in reduced unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses.}
464 +
465 + \begin{tabular}{ccc}
466 + \hline
467 + (Equilvalent) Exchange Interval (fs) & $\lambda^*_{swap}$ &
468 + $\lambda^*_{scale}$\\
469 + \hline
470 + 250  & 7.03(0.34) & 7.30(0.10)\\
471 + 500  & 7.03(0.14) & 6.95(0.09)\\
472 + 1000 & 6.91(0.42) & 7.19(0.07)\\
473 + 2000 & 7.52(0.15) & 7.19(0.28)\\
474 + \hline
475 + \end{tabular}
476 + \label{thermalLJRes}
477 + \end{center}
478 + \end{minipage}
479 + \end{table*}
480 +
481 + \begin{figure}
482 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalGrad}
483 + \caption{NIVS-RNEMD method introduced similar temperature gradients
484 +  compared to ``swapping'' method under various kinetic energy flux in
485 +  thermal conductivity simulations.}
486 + \label{thermalGrad}
487 + \end{figure}
488 +
489 + During these simulations, molecule velocities were recorded in 1000 of
490 + all the snapshots of one single data collection process. These
491 + velocity data were used to produce histograms of velocity and speed
492 + distribution in different slabs. From these histograms, it is observed
493 + that under relatively high unphysical kinetic energy flux, speed and
494 + velocity distribution of molecules in slabs where swapping occured
495 + could deviate from Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Figure
496 + \ref{thermalHist} a) illustrates how these distributions deviate from an
497 + ideal distribution. In high temperature slab, probability density in
498 + low speed is confidently smaller than ideal curve fit; in low
499 + temperature slab, probability density in high speed is smaller than
500 + ideal, while larger than ideal in low speed. This phenomenon is more
501 + obvious in our high swapping rate simulations. And this deviation
502 + could also leads to deviation of distribution of velocity in various
503 + dimensions. One feature of these deviated distribution is that in high
504 + temperature slab, the ideal Gaussian peak was changed into a
505 + relatively flat plateau; while in low temperature slab, that peak
506 + appears sharper. This problem is rooted in the mechanism of the
507 + swapping method. Continually depleting low (high) speed particles in
508 + the high (low) temperature slab could not be complemented by
509 + diffusions of low (high) speed particles from neighbor slabs, unless
510 + in suffciently low swapping rate. Simutaneously, surplus low speed
511 + particles in the low temperature slab do not have sufficient time to
512 + diffuse to neighbor slabs. However, thermal exchange rate should reach
513 + a minimum level to produce an observable thermal gradient under noise
514 + interference. Consequently, swapping RNEMD has a relatively narrow
515 + choice of swapping rate to satisfy these above restrictions.
516 +
517 + Comparatively, NIVS-RNEMD has a speed distribution closer to the ideal
518 + curve fit (Figure \ref{thermalHist} b). Essentially, after scaling, a
519 + Gaussian distribution function would remain Gaussian. Although a
520 + single scaling is non-isotropic in all three dimensions, our scaling
521 + coefficient criteria could help maintian the scaling region as
522 + isotropic as possible. On the other hand, scaling coefficients are
523 + preferred to be as close to 1 as possible, which also helps minimize
524 + the difference among different dimensions. This is possible if scaling
525 + interval and one-time thermal transfer energy are well
526 + chosen. Consequently, NIVS-RNEMD is able to impose an unphysical
527 + thermal flux as the previous RNEMD method without large perturbation
528 + to the distribution of velocity and speed in the exchange regions.
529 +
530 + \begin{figure}
531 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalHist}
532 + \caption{Speed distribution for thermal conductivity using a)
533 +  ``swapping'' and b) NIVS- RNEMD methods. Shown is from the
534 +  simulations with an exchange or equilvalent exchange interval of 250
535 +  fs.}
536 + \label{thermalHist}
537 + \end{figure}
538 +
539 + \subsubsection{SPC/E Water}
540 + Our results of SPC/E water thermal conductivity are comparable to
541 + Bedrov {\it et al.}\cite{ISI:000090151400044}, which employed the
542 + previous swapping RNEMD method for their calculation. Bedrov {\it et
543 +  al.}\cite{ISI:000090151400044} argued that exchange of the molecule
544 + center-of-mass velocities instead of single atom velocities in a
545 + molecule conserves the total kinetic energy and linear momentum. This
546 + principle is adopted in our simulations. Scaling is applied to the
547 + velocities of the rigid bodies of SPC/E model water molecules, instead
548 + of each hydrogen and oxygen atoms in relevant water molecules. As
549 + shown in Figure \ref{spceGrad}, temperature gradients were established
550 + similar to their system. However, the average temperature of our
551 + system is 300K, while theirs is 318K, which would be attributed for
552 + part of the difference between the final calculation results (Table
553 + \ref{spceThermal}). Both methods yields values in agreement with
554 + experiment. And this shows the applicability of our method to
555 + multi-atom molecular system.
556 +
557 + \begin{figure}
558 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spceGrad}
559 + \caption{Temperature gradients for SPC/E water thermal conductivity.}
560 + \label{spceGrad}
561 + \end{figure}
562 +
563 + \begin{table*}
564 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
565 + \begin{center}
566 +
567 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of SPC/E water
568 +  at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various thermal exchange rates. Errors of
569 +  calculations in parentheses. }
570 +
571 + \begin{tabular}{cccc}
572 + \hline
573 + $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & & $\lambda$(W/m/K) & \\
574 + & This work & Previous simulations\cite{ISI:000090151400044} &
575 + Experiment$^a$\\
576 + \hline
577 + 0.38 & 0.816(0.044) & & 0.64\\
578 + 0.81 & 0.770(0.008) & 0.784\\
579 + 1.54 & 0.813(0.007) & 0.730\\
580 + \hline
581 + \end{tabular}
582 + \label{spceThermal}
583 + \end{center}
584 + \end{minipage}
585 + \end{table*}
586 +
587 + \subsubsection{Crystal Gold}
588 + Our results of gold thermal conductivity using two force fields are
589 + shown separately in Table \ref{qscThermal} and \ref{eamThermal}. In
590 + these calculations,the end and middle slabs were excluded in thermal
591 + gradient regession and only used as heat source and drain in the
592 + systems. Our yielded values using EAM force field are slightly larger
593 + than those using QSC force field. However, both series are
594 + significantly smaller than experimental value by an order of more than
595 + 100. It has been verified that this difference is mainly attributed to
596 + the lack of electron interaction representation in these force field
597 + parameters. Richardson {\it et al.}\cite{Clancy:1992} used EAM
598 + force field parameters in their metal thermal conductivity
599 + calculations. The Non-Equilibrium MD method they employed in their
600 + simulations produced comparable results to ours. As Zhang {\it et
601 +  al.}\cite{ISI:000231042800044} stated, thermal conductivity values
602 + are influenced mainly by force field. Therefore, it is confident to
603 + conclude that NIVS-RNEMD is applicable to metal force field system.
604 +
605 + \begin{figure}
606 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{AuGrad}
607 + \caption{Temperature gradients for thermal conductivity calculation of
608 +  crystal gold using QSC force field.}
609 + \label{AuGrad}
610 + \end{figure}
611 +
612 + \begin{table*}
613 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
614 + \begin{center}
615 +
616 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of crystal gold
617 +  using QSC force field at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various
618 +  thermal exchange rates. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
619 +
620 + \begin{tabular}{cc}
621 + \hline
622 + $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & $\lambda$(W/m/K)\\
623 + \hline
624 + 1.44 & 1.10(0.01)\\
625 + 2.86 & 1.08(0.02)\\
626 + 5.14 & 1.15(0.01)\\
627 + \hline
628 + \end{tabular}
629 + \label{qscThermal}
630 + \end{center}
631 + \end{minipage}
632 + \end{table*}
633 +
634 + \begin{figure}
635 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{eamGrad}
636 + \caption{Temperature gradients for thermal conductivity calculation of
637 +  crystal gold using EAM force field.}
638 + \label{eamGrad}
639 + \end{figure}
640 +
641 + \begin{table*}
642 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
643 + \begin{center}
644 +
645 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of crystal gold
646 +  using EAM force field at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various
647 +  thermal exchange rates. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
648 +
649 + \begin{tabular}{cc}
650 + \hline
651 + $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & $\lambda$(W/m/K)\\
652 + \hline
653 + 1.24 & 1.24(0.06)\\
654 + 2.06 & 1.37(0.04)\\
655 + 2.55 & 1.41(0.03)\\
656 + \hline
657 + \end{tabular}
658 + \label{eamThermal}
659 + \end{center}
660 + \end{minipage}
661 + \end{table*}
662 +
663 +
664 + \subsection{Interfaciel Thermal Conductivity}
665 + After simulations of homogeneous water and gold systems using
666 + NIVS-RNEMD method were proved valid, calculation of gold/water
667 + interfacial thermal conductivity was followed. It is found out that
668 + the low interfacial conductance is probably due to the hydrophobic
669 + surface in our system. Figure \ref{interfaceDensity} demonstrates mass
670 + density change along $z$-axis, which is perpendicular to the
671 + gold/water interface. It is observed that water density significantly
672 + decreases when approaching the surface. Under this low thermal
673 + conductance, both gold and water phase have sufficient time to
674 + eliminate temperature difference inside respectively (Figure
675 + \ref{interfaceGrad}). With indistinguishable temperature difference
676 + within respective phase, it is valid to assume that the temperature
677 + difference between gold and water on surface would be approximately
678 + the same as the difference between the gold and water phase. This
679 + assumption enables convenient calculation of $G$ using
680 + Eq. \ref{interfaceCalc} instead of measuring temperatures of thin
681 + layer of water and gold close enough to surface, which would have
682 + greater fluctuation and lower accuracy. Reported results (Table
683 + \ref{interfaceRes}) are of two orders of magnitude smaller than our
684 + calculations on homogeneous systems, and thus have larger relative
685 + errors than our calculation results on homogeneous systems.
686 +
687 + \begin{figure}
688 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interfaceDensity}
689 + \caption{Density profile for interfacial thermal conductivity
690 +  simulation box. Significant water density decrease is observed on
691 +  gold surface.}
692 + \label{interfaceDensity}
693 + \end{figure}
694 +
695 + \begin{figure}
696 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interfaceGrad}
697 + \caption{Temperature profiles for interfacial thermal conductivity
698 +  simulation box. Temperatures of different slabs in the same phase
699 +  show no significant difference.}
700 + \label{interfaceGrad}
701 + \end{figure}
702 +
703 + \begin{table*}
704 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
705 + \begin{center}
706 +
707 + \caption{Calculation results for interfacial thermal conductivity
708 +  at ${\langle T\rangle \sim}$ 300K at various thermal exchange
709 +  rates. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
710 +
711 + \begin{tabular}{cccc}
712 + \hline
713 + $J_z$(MW/m$^2$) & $T_{gold}$ & $T_{water}$ & $G$(MW/m$^2$/K)\\
714 + \hline
715 + 98.0 & 355.2 & 295.8 & 1.65(0.21) \\
716 + 78.8 & 343.8 & 298.0 & 1.72(0.32) \\
717 + 73.6 & 344.3 & 298.0 & 1.59(0.24) \\
718 + 49.2 & 330.1 & 300.4 & 1.65(0.35) \\
719 + \hline
720 + \end{tabular}
721 + \label{interfaceRes}
722 + \end{center}
723 + \end{minipage}
724 + \end{table*}
725 +
726 + \subsection{Shear Viscosity}
727 + Our calculations (Table \ref{shearRate}) shows that scale RNEMD method
728 + produced comparable shear viscosity to swap RNEMD method. In Table
729 + \ref{shearRate}, the names of the calculated samples are devided into
730 + two parts. The first number refers to total slabs in one simulation
731 + box. The second number refers to the swapping interval in swap method, or
732 + in scale method the equilvalent swapping interval that the same
733 + momentum flux would theoretically result in swap method. All the scale
734 + method results were from simulations that had a scaling interval of 10
735 + time steps. The average molecular momentum gradients of these samples
736 + are shown in Figure \ref{shearGrad}.
737 +
738 + \begin{table*}
739 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
740 + \begin{center}
741 +
742 + \caption{Calculation results for shear viscosity of Lennard-Jones
743 +  fluid at ${T^* = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with swap and scale
744 +  methods at various momentum exchange rates. Results in reduced
745 +  unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
746 +
747 + \begin{tabular}{ccc}
748 + \hline
749 + Series & $\eta^*_{swap}$ & $\eta^*_{scale}$\\
750 + \hline
751 + 20-500 & 3.64(0.05) & 3.76(0.09)\\
752 + 20-1000 & 3.52(0.16) & 3.66(0.06)\\
753 + 20-2000 & 3.72(0.05) & 3.32(0.18)\\
754 + 20-2500 & 3.42(0.06) & 3.43(0.08)\\
755 + \hline
756 + \end{tabular}
757 + \label{shearRate}
758 + \end{center}
759 + \end{minipage}
760 + \end{table*}
761 +
762 + \begin{figure}
763 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearGrad}
764 + \caption{Average momentum gradients of shear viscosity simulations}
765 + \label{shearGrad}
766 + \end{figure}
767 +
768 + \begin{figure}
769 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearTempScale}
770 + \caption{Temperature profile for scaling RNEMD simulation.}
771 + \label{shearTempScale}
772 + \end{figure}
773 + However, observations of temperatures along three dimensions show that
774 + inhomogeneity occurs in scaling RNEMD simulations, particularly in the
775 + two slabs which were scaled. Figure \ref{shearTempScale} indicate that with
776 + relatively large imposed momentum flux, the temperature difference among $x$
777 + and the other two dimensions was significant. This would result from the
778 + algorithm of scaling method. From Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, after
779 + momentum gradient is set up, $P_c^x$ would be roughly stable
780 + ($<0$). Consequently, scaling factor $x$ would most probably larger
781 + than 1. Therefore, the kinetic energy in $x$-dimension $K_c^x$ would
782 + keep increase after most scaling steps. And if there is not enough time
783 + for the kinetic energy to exchange among different dimensions and
784 + different slabs, the system would finally build up temperature
785 + (kinetic energy) difference among the three dimensions. Also, between
786 + $y$ and $z$ dimensions in the scaled slabs, temperatures of $z$-axis
787 + are closer to neighbor slabs. This is due to momentum transfer along
788 + $z$ dimension between slabs.
789 +
790 + Although results between scaling and swapping methods are comparable,
791 + the inherent temperature inhomogeneity even in relatively low imposed
792 + exchange momentum flux simulations makes scaling RNEMD method less
793 + attractive than swapping RNEMD in shear viscosity calculation.
794 +
795 + \section{Conclusions}
796 + NIVS-RNEMD simulation method is developed and tested on various
797 + systems. Simulation results demonstrate its validity in thermal
798 + conductivity calculations, from Lennard-Jones fluid to multi-atom
799 + molecule like water and metal crystals. NIVS-RNEMD improves
800 + non-Boltzmann-Maxwell distributions, which exist in previous RNEMD
801 + methods. Furthermore, it develops a valid means for unphysical thermal
802 + transfer between different species of molecules, and thus extends its
803 + applicability to interfacial systems. Our calculation of gold/water
804 + interfacial thermal conductivity demonstrates this advantage over
805 + previous RNEMD methods. NIVS-RNEMD has also limited application on
806 + shear viscosity calculations, but could cause temperature difference
807 + among different dimensions under high momentum flux. Modification is
808 + necessary to extend the applicability of NIVS-RNEMD in shear viscosity
809 + calculations.
810 +
811   \section{Acknowledgments}
812   Support for this project was provided by the National Science
813   Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational time was provided by
814   the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the University of Notre
815   Dame.  \newpage
816  
817 < \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
817 > \bibliographystyle{aip}
818   \bibliography{nivsRnemd}
819 +
820   \end{doublespace}
821   \end{document}
822  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines