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 3534 by skuang, Thu Oct 8 21:42:53 2009 UTC vs.
Revision 3574 by skuang, Fri Mar 12 21:36:16 2010 UTC

# Line 75 | Line 75 | RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD m
75   from liquid copper to monatomic liquids to molecular fluids
76   (e.g. ionic liquids).\cite{ISI:000246190100032}
77  
78 + \begin{figure}
79 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalDemo}
80 + \caption{Demostration of thermal gradient estalished by RNEMD method.}
81 + \label{thermalDemo}
82 + \end{figure}
83 +
84   RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD methods because
85   it imposes what is typically difficult to measure (a flux or stress)
86   and it is typically much easier to compute momentum gradients or
# Line 91 | Line 97 | Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some probl
97   typically samples from the same manifold of states in the
98   microcanonical ensemble.
99  
100 < Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some problems with the
101 < original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large momentum fluxes
102 < (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the slabs) can result
103 < in "notched", "peaked" and generally non-thermal momentum
100 > Recently, Tenney and Maginn\cite{ISI:000273472300004} have discovered
101 > some problems with the original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large
102 > momentum fluxes (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the
103 > slabs) can result in ``notched'', ``peaked'' and generally non-thermal momentum
104   distributions in the two slabs, as well as non-linear thermal and
105   velocity distributions along the direction of the imposed flux ($z$).
106   Tenney and Maginn obtained reasonable limits on imposed flux and
# Line 123 | Line 129 | moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold
129   Rather than using momentum swaps, we use a series of velocity scaling
130   moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold slab,
131   \begin{equation}
132 < \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
133 < x \\
134 < y \\
135 < z \\
132 > \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
133 > x & 0 & 0 \\
134 > 0 & y & 0 \\
135 > 0 & 0 & z \\
136   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_i
137   \end{equation}
138   where ${x, y, z}$ are a set of 3 scaling variables for each of the
139   three directions in the system.  Likewise, the molecules $\{j\}$
140   located in the hot slab will see a concomitant scaling of velocities,
141   \begin{equation}
142 < \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
143 < x^\prime \\
144 < y^\prime \\
145 < z^\prime \\
142 > \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
143 > x^\prime & 0 & 0 \\
144 > 0 & y^\prime & 0 \\
145 > 0 & 0 & z^\prime \\
146   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_j
147   \end{equation}
148  
# Line 147 | Line 153 | where
153   P_h^\alpha + P_c^\alpha = \alpha^\prime P_h^\alpha + \alpha P_c^\alpha
154   \end{equation}
155   where
156 < \begin{equation}
151 < \begin{array}{rcl}
156 > \begin{eqnarray}
157   P_c^\alpha & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N_c} m_i \left[\vec{v}_i\right]_\alpha \\
158 < P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j \left[\vec{v}_j\right]_\alpha \\
154 < \end{array}
158 > P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j \left[\vec{v}_j\right]_\alpha
159   \label{eq:momentumdef}
160 < \end{equation}
160 > \end{eqnarray}
161   Therefore, for each of the three directions, the hot scaling
162   parameters are a simple function of the cold scaling parameters and
163   the instantaneous linear momentum in each of the two slabs.
# Line 170 | Line 174 | Conservation of total energy also places constraints o
174   Conservation of total energy also places constraints on the scaling:
175   \begin{equation}
176   \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} K_h^\alpha + K_c^\alpha = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
177 < \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha.
177 > \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha
178   \end{equation}
179   where the kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and $K_c^\alpha$, are computed
180   for each of the three directions in a similar manner to the linear momenta
# Line 178 | Line 182 | we obtain the {\it constraint ellipsoid equation}:
182   hot scaling parameters ($\alpha^\prime$) from Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}),
183   we obtain the {\it constraint ellipsoid equation}:
184   \begin{equation}
185 < \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha + c_\alpha = 0,
185 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha + c_\alpha = 0
186   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoid}
187   \end{equation}
188   where the constants are obtained from the instantaneous values of the
189   linear momenta and kinetic energies for the hot and cold slabs,
190 < \begin{equation}
187 < \begin{array}{rcl}
190 > \begin{eqnarray}
191   a_\alpha & = &\left(K_c^\alpha + K_h^\alpha
192    \left(p_\alpha\right)^2\right) \\
193   b_\alpha & = & -2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha \left( 1 + p_\alpha\right) \\
194 < c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha \\
192 < \end{array}
194 > c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha
195   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoidConsts}
196 < \end{equation}
196 > \end{eqnarray}
197   This ellipsoid equation defines the set of cold slab scaling
198   parameters which can be applied while preserving both linear momentum
199   in all three directions as well as kinetic energy.
# Line 218 | Line 220 | the two ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
220   the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
221   flux ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of
222   the two ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
223 +
224 + \begin{figure}
225 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ellipsoids}
226 + \caption{Scaling points which maintain both constant energy and
227 +  constant linear momentum of the system lie on the surface of the
228 +  {\it constraint ellipsoid} while points which generate the target
229 +  momentum flux lie on the surface of the {\it flux ellipsoid}.  The
230 +  velocity distributions in the hot bin are scaled by only those
231 +  points which lie on both ellipsoids.}
232 + \label{ellipsoids}
233 + \end{figure}
234  
235   One may also define momentum flux (say along the x-direction) as:
236   \begin{equation}
237 < (1-x) P_c^x  = j_z(p_x)\Delta t
237 > (1-x) P_c^x = j_z(p_x)\Delta t
238   \label{eq:fluxPlane}
239   \end{equation}
240   The above {\it flux equation} is essentially a plane which is
# Line 274 | Line 287 | simulations were run with the OOPSE simulation softwar
287  
288   \section{Computational Details}
289   Our simulation consists of a series of systems. All of these
290 < simulations were run with the OOPSE simulation software
290 > simulations were run with the OpenMD simulation software
291   package\cite{Meineke:2005gd} integrated with RNEMD methods.
292  
293   A Lennard-Jones fluid system was built and tested first. In order to
# Line 284 | Line 297 | Verlet time-stepping algorithm with reduced timestep $
297    \times 10.06\sigma \times 30.18\sigma}$ by size. The reduced density
298   ${\rho^* = \rho\sigma^3}$ was thus 0.85, which enabled direct
299   comparison between our results and others. These simulations used
300 < Verlet time-stepping algorithm with reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
300 > velocity Verlet algorithm with reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
301    4.6\times10^{-4}}$.
302  
303   For shear viscosity calculation, the reduced temperature was ${T^* =
304 <  k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$. Simulations were run in microcanonical
305 < ensemble (NVE). For the swapping part, Muller-Plathe's algorithm was
304 >  k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$. Simulations were first equilibrated in canonical
305 > ensemble (NVT), then equilibrated in microcanonical ensemble
306 > (NVE). Establishing and stablizing momentum gradient were followed
307 > also in NVE ensemble. For the swapping part, Muller-Plathe's algorithm was
308   adopted.\cite{ISI:000080382700030} The simulation box was under
309   periodic boundary condition, and devided into ${N = 20}$ slabs. In each swap,
310   the top slab ${(n = 1)}$ exchange the most negative $x$ momentum with the
311   most positive $x$ momentum in the center slab ${(n = N/2 + 1)}$. Referred
312 < to Tenney {\it et al.}\cite{tenneyANDmaginn}, a series of swapping
312 > to Tenney {\it et al.}\cite{ISI:000273472300004}, a series of swapping
313   frequency were chosen. According to each result from swapping
314   RNEMD, scaling RNEMD simulations were run with the target momentum
315   flux set to produce a similar momentum flux and shear
316   rate. Furthermore, various scaling frequencies can be tested for one
317   single swapping rate. To compare the performance between swapping and
318   scaling method, temperatures of different dimensions in all the slabs
319 < were observed.
319 > were observed. Most of the simulations include $10^5$ steps of
320 > equilibration without imposing momentum flux, $10^5$ steps of
321 > stablization with imposing momentum transfer, and $10^6$ steps of data
322 > collection under RNEMD. For relatively high momentum flux simulations,
323 > ${5\times10^5}$ step data collection is sufficient. For some low momentum
324 > flux simulations, ${2\times10^6}$ steps were necessary.
325  
326   After each simulation, the shear viscosity was calculated in reduced
327   unit. The momentum flux was calculated with total unphysical
328 < transferred momentum ${P_x}$ and simulation time $t$:
328 > transferred momentum ${P_x}$ and data collection time $t$:
329   \begin{equation}
330   j_z(p_x) = \frac{P_x}{2 t L_x L_y}
331   \end{equation}
# Line 318 | Line 338 | simulation box, in each swap, the top slab exchange th
338   For thermal conductivity calculation, simulations were first run under
339   reduced temperature ${T^* = 0.72}$ in NVE ensemble. Muller-Plathe's
340   algorithm was adopted in the swapping method. Under identical
341 < simulation box, in each swap, the top slab exchange the molecule with
342 < least kinetic energy with the molecule in the center slab with most
343 < kinetic energy, unless this ``coldest'' molecule in the ``hot'' slab
344 < is still ``hotter'' than the ``hottest'' molecule in the ``cold''
341 > simulation box parameters, in each swap, the top slab exchange the
342 > molecule with least kinetic energy with the molecule in the center
343 > slab with most kinetic energy, unless this ``coldest'' molecule in the
344 > ``hot'' slab is still ``hotter'' than the ``hottest'' molecule in the ``cold''
345   slab. According to swapping RNEMD results, target energy flux for
346   scaling RNEMD simulations can be set. Also, various scaling
347   frequencies can be tested for one target energy flux. To compare the
# Line 330 | Line 350 | with total unphysical transferred energy ${E_{total}}$
350  
351   For each swapping rate, thermal conductivity was calculated in reduced
352   unit. The energy flux was calculated similarly to the momentum flux,
353 < with total unphysical transferred energy ${E_{total}}$ and simulation
353 > with total unphysical transferred energy ${E_{total}}$ and data collection
354   time $t$:
355   \begin{equation}
356   J_z = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y}
# Line 340 | Line 360 | further convert it into reduced unit ${\lambda^*=\lamb
360   profile. From the thermal conductivity $\lambda$ calculated, one can
361   further convert it into reduced unit ${\lambda^*=\lambda \sigma^2
362    m^{1/2} k_B^{-1}\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$.
363 +
364 + Another series of our simulation is to calculate the interfacial
365 + thermal conductivity of a Au/H$_2$O system. Respective calculations of
366 + water (SPC/E) and gold (QSC) thermal conductivity were performed and
367 + compared with current results to ensure the validity of
368 + NIVS-RNEMD. After that, a mixture system was simulated.
369 +
370 + For thermal conductivity calculation of bulk water, a simulation box
371 + consisting of 1000 molecules were first equilibrated under ambient
372 + pressure and temperature conditions (NPT), followed by equilibration
373 + in fixed volume (NVT). The system was then equilibrated in
374 + microcanonical ensemble (NVE). Also in NVE ensemble, establishing
375 + stable thermal gradient was followed. The simulation box was under
376 + periodic boundary condition and devided into 10 slabs. Data collection
377 + process was similar to Lennard-Jones fluid system. Thermal
378 + conductivity calculation of bulk crystal gold used a similar
379 + protocol. And the face centered cubic crystal simulation box consists
380 + of 2880 Au atoms.
381  
382 + After simulations of bulk water and crystal gold, a mixture system was
383 + constructed, consisting of 1188 Au atoms and 1862 H$_2$O
384 + molecules. Spohr potential was adopted in depicting the interaction
385 + between metal atom and water molecule.\cite{ISI:000167766600035} A
386 + similar protocol of equilibration was followed. A thermal gradient was
387 + built. It was found out that compared to homogeneous systems, the two
388 + phases could have large temperature difference under a relatively low
389 + thermal flux. Therefore, under our low flux condition, it is assumed
390 + that the metal and water phases have respectively homogeneous
391 + temperature. In calculating the interfacial thermal conductivity $G$,
392 + this assumptioin was applied and thus our formula becomes:
393 +
394 + \begin{equation}
395 + G = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y \left( \langle T_{gold}\rangle -
396 +    \langle T_{water}\rangle \right)}
397 + \label{interfaceCalc}
398 + \end{equation}
399 + where ${E_{total}}$ is the imposed unphysical kinetic energy transfer
400 + and ${\langle T_{gold}\rangle}$ and ${\langle T_{water}\rangle}$ are the
401 + average observed temperature of gold and water phases respectively.
402 +
403   \section{Results And Discussion}
404   \subsection{Shear Viscosity}
405 + Our calculations (Table \ref{shearRate}) shows that scale RNEMD method
406 + produced comparable shear viscosity to swap RNEMD method. In Table
407 + \ref{shearRate}, the names of the calculated samples are devided into
408 + two parts. The first number refers to total slabs in one simulation
409 + box. The second number refers to the swapping interval in swap method, or
410 + in scale method the equilvalent swapping interval that the same
411 + momentum flux would theoretically result in swap method. All the scale
412 + method results were from simulations that had a scaling interval of 10
413 + time steps. The average molecular momentum gradients of these samples
414 + are shown in Figure \ref{shearGrad}.
415  
416 + \begin{table*}
417 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
418 + \begin{center}
419 +
420 + \caption{Calculation results for shear viscosity of Lennard-Jones
421 +  fluid at ${T^* = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with swap and scale
422 +  methods at various momentum exchange rates. Results in reduced
423 +  unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
424 +
425 + \begin{tabular}{ccc}
426 + \hline
427 + Series & $\eta^*_{swap}$ & $\eta^*_{scale}$\\
428 + \hline
429 + 20-500 & 3.64(0.05) & 3.76(0.09)\\
430 + 20-1000 & 3.52(0.16) & 3.66(0.06)\\
431 + 20-2000 & 3.72(0.05) & 3.32(0.18)\\
432 + 20-2500 & 3.42(0.06) & 3.43(0.08)\\
433 + \hline
434 + \end{tabular}
435 + \label{shearRate}
436 + \end{center}
437 + \end{minipage}
438 + \end{table*}
439 +
440 + \begin{figure}
441 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearGrad}
442 + \caption{Average momentum gradients of shear viscosity simulations}
443 + \label{shearGrad}
444 + \end{figure}
445 +
446 + \begin{figure}
447 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearTempScale}
448 + \caption{Temperature profile for scaling RNEMD simulation.}
449 + \label{shearTempScale}
450 + \end{figure}
451 + However, observations of temperatures along three dimensions show that
452 + inhomogeneity occurs in scaling RNEMD simulations, particularly in the
453 + two slabs which were scaled. Figure \ref{shearTempScale} indicate that with
454 + relatively large imposed momentum flux, the temperature difference among $x$
455 + and the other two dimensions was significant. This would result from the
456 + algorithm of scaling method. From Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, after
457 + momentum gradient is set up, $P_c^x$ would be roughly stable
458 + ($<0$). Consequently, scaling factor $x$ would most probably larger
459 + than 1. Therefore, the kinetic energy in $x$-dimension $K_c^x$ would
460 + keep increase after most scaling steps. And if there is not enough time
461 + for the kinetic energy to exchange among different dimensions and
462 + different slabs, the system would finally build up temperature
463 + (kinetic energy) difference among the three dimensions. Also, between
464 + $y$ and $z$ dimensions in the scaled slabs, temperatures of $z$-axis
465 + are closer to neighbor slabs. This is due to momentum transfer along
466 + $z$ dimension between slabs.
467 +
468 + Although results between scaling and swapping methods are comparable,
469 + the inherent temperature inhomogeneity even in relatively low imposed
470 + exchange momentum flux simulations makes scaling RNEMD method less
471 + attractive than swapping RNEMD in shear viscosity calculation.
472 +
473 + \subsection{Thermal Conductivity}
474 + \subsubsection{Lennard-Jones Fluid}
475 + Our thermal conductivity calculations also show that scaling method results
476 + agree with swapping method. Table \ref{thermal} lists our simulation
477 + results with similar manner we used in shear viscosity
478 + calculation. All the data reported from scaling method were obtained
479 + by simulations of 10-step exchange frequency, and the target exchange
480 + kinetic energy were set to produce equivalent kinetic energy flux as
481 + in swapping method. Figure \ref{thermalGrad} exhibits similar thermal
482 + gradients of respective similar kinetic energy flux.
483 +
484 + \begin{table*}
485 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
486 + \begin{center}
487 +
488 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of Lennard-Jones
489 +  fluid at ${\langle T^* \rangle = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with
490 +  swap and scale methods at various kinetic energy exchange rates. Results
491 +  in reduced unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses.}
492 +
493 + \begin{tabular}{ccc}
494 + \hline
495 + Series & $\lambda^*_{swap}$ & $\lambda^*_{scale}$\\
496 + \hline
497 + 20-250  & 7.03(0.34) & 7.30(0.10)\\
498 + 20-500  & 7.03(0.14) & 6.95(0.09)\\
499 + 20-1000 & 6.91(0.42) & 7.19(0.07)\\
500 + 20-2000 & 7.52(0.15) & 7.19(0.28)\\
501 + \hline
502 + \end{tabular}
503 + \label{thermal}
504 + \end{center}
505 + \end{minipage}
506 + \end{table*}
507 +
508 + \begin{figure}
509 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalGrad}
510 + \caption{Temperature gradients of thermal conductivity simulations}
511 + \label{thermalGrad}
512 + \end{figure}
513 +
514 + During these simulations, molecule velocities were recorded in 1000 of
515 + all the snapshots. These velocity data were used to produce histograms
516 + of velocity and speed distribution in different slabs. From these
517 + histograms, it is observed that with increasing unphysical kinetic
518 + energy flux, speed and velocity distribution of molecules in slabs
519 + where swapping occured could deviate from Maxwell-Boltzmann
520 + distribution. Figure \ref{histSwap} indicates how these distributions
521 + deviate from ideal condition. In high temperature slabs, probability
522 + density in low speed is confidently smaller than ideal distribution;
523 + in low temperature slabs, probability density in high speed is smaller
524 + than ideal. This phenomenon is observable even in our relatively low
525 + swapping rate simulations. And this deviation could also leads to
526 + deviation of distribution of velocity in various dimensions. One
527 + feature of these deviated distribution is that in high temperature
528 + slab, the ideal Gaussian peak was changed into a relatively flat
529 + plateau; while in low temperature slab, that peak appears sharper.
530 +
531 + \begin{figure}
532 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{histSwap}
533 + \caption{Speed distribution for thermal conductivity using swapping RNEMD.}
534 + \label{histSwap}
535 + \end{figure}
536 +
537 + \begin{figure}
538 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{histScale}
539 + \caption{Speed distribution for thermal conductivity using scaling RNEMD.}
540 + \label{histScale}
541 + \end{figure}
542 +
543 + \subsubsection{SPC/E Water}
544 + Our results of SPC/E water thermal conductivity are comparable to
545 + Bedrov {\it et al.}\cite{ISI:000090151400044}, which employed the
546 + previous swapping RNEMD method for their calculation. Our simulations
547 + were able to produce a similar temperature gradient to their
548 + system. However, the average temperature of our system is 300K, while
549 + theirs is 318K, which would be attributed for part of the difference
550 + between the two series of results. Both methods yields values in
551 + agreement with experiment. And this shows the applicability of our
552 + method to multi-atom molecular system.
553 +
554 + \begin{figure}
555 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spceGrad}
556 + \caption{Temperature gradients for SPC/E water thermal conductivity.}
557 + \label{spceGrad}
558 + \end{figure}
559 +
560 + \begin{table*}
561 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
562 + \begin{center}
563 +
564 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of SPC/E water
565 +  at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various thermal exchange rates. Errors of
566 +  calculations in parentheses. }
567 +
568 + \begin{tabular}{cccc}
569 + \hline
570 + $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & & $\lambda$(W/m/K) & \\
571 + & This work & Previous simulations\cite{ISI:000090151400044} &
572 + Experiment$^a$\\
573 + \hline
574 + 0.38 & 0.816(0.044) & & 0.64\\
575 + 0.81 & 0.770(0.008) & 0.784\\
576 + 1.54 & 0.813(0.007) & 0.730\\
577 + \hline
578 + \end{tabular}
579 + \label{spceThermal}
580 + \end{center}
581 + \end{minipage}
582 + \end{table*}
583 +
584 + \subsubsection{Crystal Gold}
585 + Our results of gold thermal conductivity used QSC force field are
586 + shown in Table \ref{AuThermal}. Although our calculation is smaller
587 + than experimental value by an order of more than 100, this difference
588 + is mainly attributed to the lack of electron interaction
589 + representation in our force field parameters. Richardson {\it et
590 +  al.}\cite{ISI:A1992HX37800010} used similar force field parameters
591 + in their metal thermal conductivity calculations. The EMD method they
592 + employed in their simulations produced comparable results to
593 + ours. Therefore, it is confident to conclude that NIVS-RNEMD is
594 + applicable to metal force field system.
595 +
596 + \begin{figure}
597 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{AuGrad}
598 + \caption{Temperature gradients for crystal gold thermal conductivity.}
599 + \label{AuGrad}
600 + \end{figure}
601 +
602 + \begin{table*}
603 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
604 + \begin{center}
605 +
606 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of crystal gold
607 +  at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various thermal exchange rates. Errors of
608 +  calculations in parentheses. }
609 +
610 + \begin{tabular}{ccc}
611 + \hline
612 + $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & $\lambda$(W/m/K)\\
613 + & This work & Previous simulations\cite{ISI:A1992HX37800010} \\
614 + \hline
615 + 1.44 & 1.10(0.01) & \\
616 + 2.86 & 1.08(0.02) & \\
617 + 5.14 & 1.15(0.01) & \\
618 + \hline
619 + \end{tabular}
620 + \label{AuThermal}
621 + \end{center}
622 + \end{minipage}
623 + \end{table*}
624 +
625 + \subsection{Interfaciel Thermal Conductivity}
626 + After valid simulations of homogeneous water and gold systems using
627 + NIVS-RNEMD method, calculation of gold/water interfacial thermal
628 + conductivity was followed. It is found out that the interfacial
629 + conductance is low due to a hydrophobic surface in our system. Figure
630 + \ref{interfaceDensity} demonstrates this observance. Consequently, our
631 + reported results (Table \ref{interfaceRes}) are of two orders of
632 + magnitude smaller than our calculations on homogeneous systems.
633 +
634 + \begin{figure}
635 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interfaceDensity}
636 + \caption{Density profile for interfacial thermal conductivity
637 +  simulation box.}
638 + \label{interfaceDensity}
639 + \end{figure}
640 +
641 + \begin{figure}
642 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interfaceGrad}
643 + \caption{Temperature profiles for interfacial thermal conductivity
644 +  simulation box.}
645 + \label{interfaceGrad}
646 + \end{figure}
647 +
648 + \begin{table*}
649 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
650 + \begin{center}
651 +
652 + \caption{Calculation results for interfacial thermal conductivity
653 +  at ${\langle T\rangle \sim}$ 300K at various thermal exchange
654 +  rates. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
655 +
656 + \begin{tabular}{cccc}
657 + \hline
658 + $J_z$(MW/m$^2$) & $T_{gold}$ & $T_{water}$ & $G$(MW/m$^2$/K)\\
659 + \hline
660 + 98.0 & 355.2 & 295.8 & 1.65(0.21) \\
661 + 78.8 & 343.8 & 298.0 & 1.72(0.32) \\
662 + 73.6 & 344.3 & 298.0 & 1.59(0.24) \\
663 + 49.2 & 330.1 & 300.4 & 1.65(0.35) \\
664 + \hline
665 + \end{tabular}
666 + \label{interfaceRes}
667 + \end{center}
668 + \end{minipage}
669 + \end{table*}
670 +
671 + \section{Conclusions}
672 + NIVS-RNEMD simulation method is developed and tested on various
673 + systems. Simulation results demonstrate its validity of thermal
674 + conductivity calculations. NIVS-RNEMD improves non-Boltzmann-Maxwell
675 + distributions existing in previous RNEMD methods, and extends its
676 + applicability to interfacial systems. NIVS-RNEMD has also limited
677 + application on shear viscosity calculations, but under high momentum
678 + flux, it  could cause temperature difference among different
679 + dimensions. Modification is necessary to extend the applicability of
680 + NIVS-RNEMD in shear viscosity calculations.
681 +
682   \section{Acknowledgments}
683   Support for this project was provided by the National Science
684   Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational time was provided by

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines