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 3528 by skuang, Tue Sep 29 23:47:40 2009 UTC vs.
Revision 3608 by gezelter, Mon Jul 12 16:58:07 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
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 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}
87 > RNEMD has been widely used to provide computational estimates of
88 > thermal conductivities and shear viscosities in a wide range of
89 > materials, from liquid copper to both monatomic and molecular fluids
90 > (e.g.  ionic
91 > 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}
92  
93 < RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD methods because
94 < it imposes what is typically difficult to measure (a flux or stress)
95 < and it is typically much easier to compute momentum gradients or
96 < strains (the response).  For similar reasons, RNEMD is also preferable
97 < to slowly-converging equilibrium methods for measuring thermal
98 < conductivity and shear viscosity (using Green-Kubo relations or the
99 < Helfand moment approach of Viscardy {\it et
93 > \begin{figure}
94 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalDemo}
95 > \caption{RNEMD methods impose an unphysical transfer of momentum or
96 >  kinetic energy between a ``hot'' slab and a ``cold'' slab in the
97 >  simulation box.  The molecular system responds to this imposed flux
98 >  by generating a momentum or temperature gradient.  The slope of the
99 >  gradient can then be used to compute transport properties (e.g.
100 >  shear viscosity and thermal conductivity).}
101 > \label{thermalDemo}
102 > \end{figure}
103 >
104 > RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD
105 > methods\cite{ISI:A1988Q205300014,hess:209,Vasquez:2004fk,backer:154503,ISI:000266247600008}
106 > because it imposes what is typically difficult to measure (a flux or
107 > stress) and it is typically much easier to compute the response
108 > (momentum gradients or strains.  For similar reasons, RNEMD is also
109 > preferable to slowly-converging equilibrium methods for measuring
110 > thermal conductivity and shear viscosity (using Green-Kubo
111 > relations\cite{daivis:541,mondello:9327} or the Helfand moment
112 > approach of Viscardy {\it et
113    al.}\cite{Viscardy:2007bh,Viscardy:2007lq}) because these rely on
114   computing difficult to measure quantities.
115  
# Line 91 | Line 119 | Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some probl
119   typically samples from the same manifold of states in the
120   microcanonical ensemble.
121  
122 < Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some problems with the
123 < original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large momentum fluxes
124 < (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the slabs) can result
125 < in "notched", "peaked" and generally non-thermal momentum
126 < distributions in the two slabs, as well as non-linear thermal and
127 < velocity distributions along the direction of the imposed flux ($z$).
128 < Tenney and Maginn obtained reasonable limits on imposed flux and
129 < self-adjusting metrics for retaining the usability of the method.
122 > Recently, Tenney and Maginn\cite{Maginn:2010} have discovered
123 > some problems with the original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large
124 > momentum fluxes (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the
125 > slabs) can result in ``notched'', ``peaked'' and generally non-thermal
126 > momentum distributions in the two slabs, as well as non-linear thermal
127 > and velocity distributions along the direction of the imposed flux
128 > ($z$). Tenney and Maginn obtained reasonable limits on imposed flux
129 > and self-adjusting metrics for retaining the usability of the method.
130  
131   In this paper, we develop and test a method for non-isotropic velocity
132 < scaling (NIVS-RNEMD) which retains the desirable features of RNEMD
132 > scaling (NIVS) which retains the desirable features of RNEMD
133   (conservation of linear momentum and total energy, compatibility with
134   periodic boundary conditions) while establishing true thermal
135 < distributions in each of the two slabs.  In the next section, we
136 < develop the method for determining the scaling constraints.  We then
137 < test the method on both single component, multi-component, and
138 < non-isotropic mixtures and show that it is capable of providing
135 > distributions in each of the two slabs. In the next section, we
136 > present the method for determining the scaling constraints.  We then
137 > test the method on both liquids and solids as well as a non-isotropic
138 > liquid-solid interface and show that it is capable of providing
139   reasonable estimates of the thermal conductivity and shear viscosity
140 < in these cases.
140 > in all of these cases.
141  
142   \section{Methodology}
143 < We retain the basic idea of Muller-Plathe's RNEMD method; the periodic
144 < system is partitioned into a series of thin slabs along a particular
143 > We retain the basic idea of M\"{u}ller-Plathe's RNEMD method; the
144 > periodic system is partitioned into a series of thin slabs along one
145   axis ($z$).  One of the slabs at the end of the periodic box is
146   designated the ``hot'' slab, while the slab in the center of the box
147   is designated the ``cold'' slab.  The artificial momentum flux will be
# Line 121 | Line 149 | moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold
149   hot slab.
150  
151   Rather than using momentum swaps, we use a series of velocity scaling
152 < moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold slab,
152 > moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$  located within the cold slab,
153   \begin{equation}
154 < \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
155 < x \\
156 < y \\
157 < z \\
154 > \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
155 > x & 0 & 0 \\
156 > 0 & y & 0 \\
157 > 0 & 0 & z \\
158   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_i
159   \end{equation}
160 < where ${x, y, z}$ are a set of 3 scaling variables for each of the
161 < three directions in the system.  Likewise, the molecules $\{j\}$
162 < located in the hot slab will see a concomitant scaling of velocities,
160 > where ${x, y, z}$ are a set of 3 velocity-scaling variables for each
161 > of the three directions in the system.  Likewise, the molecules
162 > $\{j\}$ located in the hot slab will see a concomitant scaling of
163 > velocities,
164   \begin{equation}
165 < \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
166 < x^\prime \\
167 < y^\prime \\
168 < z^\prime \\
165 > \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
166 > x^\prime & 0 & 0 \\
167 > 0 & y^\prime & 0 \\
168 > 0 & 0 & z^\prime \\
169   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_j
170   \end{equation}
171  
172   Conservation of linear momentum in each of the three directions
173 < ($\alpha = x,y,z$) ties the values of the hot and cold bin scaling
173 > ($\alpha = x,y,z$) ties the values of the hot and cold scaling
174   parameters together:
175   \begin{equation}
176   P_h^\alpha + P_c^\alpha = \alpha^\prime P_h^\alpha + \alpha P_c^\alpha
177   \end{equation}
178   where
179 < \begin{equation}
151 < \begin{array}{rcl}
179 > \begin{eqnarray}
180   P_c^\alpha & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N_c} m_i \left[\vec{v}_i\right]_\alpha \\
181 < P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j \left[\vec{v}_j\right]_\alpha \\
154 < \end{array}
181 > P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j \left[\vec{v}_j\right]_\alpha
182   \label{eq:momentumdef}
183 < \end{equation}
183 > \end{eqnarray}
184   Therefore, for each of the three directions, the hot scaling
185   parameters are a simple function of the cold scaling parameters and
186   the instantaneous linear momentum in each of the two slabs.
# Line 170 | Line 197 | Conservation of total energy also places constraints o
197   Conservation of total energy also places constraints on the scaling:
198   \begin{equation}
199   \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} K_h^\alpha + K_c^\alpha = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
200 < \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha.
200 > \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha
201   \end{equation}
202 < where the kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and $K_c^\alpha$, are computed
203 < for each of the three directions in a similar manner to the linear momenta
204 < (Eq. \ref{eq:momentumdef}).  Substituting in the expressions for the
205 < hot scaling parameters ($\alpha^\prime$) from Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}),
206 < we obtain the {\it constraint ellipsoid equation}:
202 > where the translational kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and
203 > $K_c^\alpha$, are computed for each of the three directions in a
204 > similar manner to the linear momenta (Eq. \ref{eq:momentumdef}).
205 > Substituting in the expressions for the hot scaling parameters
206 > ($\alpha^\prime$) from Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}), we obtain the
207 > {\it constraint ellipsoid}:
208   \begin{equation}
209 < \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha + c_\alpha = 0,
209 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} \left( a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha +
210 >  c_\alpha \right) = 0
211   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoid}
212   \end{equation}
213   where the constants are obtained from the instantaneous values of the
214   linear momenta and kinetic energies for the hot and cold slabs,
215 < \begin{equation}
187 < \begin{array}{rcl}
215 > \begin{eqnarray}
216   a_\alpha & = &\left(K_c^\alpha + K_h^\alpha
217    \left(p_\alpha\right)^2\right) \\
218   b_\alpha & = & -2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha \left( 1 + p_\alpha\right) \\
219 < c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha \\
192 < \end{array}
219 > c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha
220   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoidConsts}
221 < \end{equation}
222 < This ellipsoid equation defines the set of cold slab scaling
223 < parameters which can be applied while preserving both linear momentum
224 < in all three directions as well as translational kinetic energy.
221 > \end{eqnarray}
222 > This ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) defines the set of
223 > cold slab scaling parameters which, when applied, preserve the linear
224 > momentum of the system in all three directions as well as total
225 > kinetic energy.
226  
227 < The goal of using velocity scaling variables is to transfer linear
228 < momentum or kinetic energy from the cold slab to the hot slab.  If the
229 < hot and cold slabs are separated along the z-axis, the energy flux is
230 < given simply by the decrease in kinetic energy of the cold bin:
227 > The goal of using these velocity scaling variables is to transfer
228 > linear momentum or kinetic energy from the cold slab to the hot slab.
229 > If the hot and cold slabs are separated along the z-axis, the energy
230 > flux is given simply by the decrease in kinetic energy of the cold
231 > bin:
232   \begin{equation}
233 < (1-x^2) K_c^x  + (1-y^2) K_c^y + (1-z^2) K_c^z = J_z
233 > (1-x^2) K_c^x  + (1-y^2) K_c^y + (1-z^2) K_c^z = J_z\Delta t
234   \end{equation}
235   The expression for the energy flux can be re-written as another
236   ellipsoid centered on $(x,y,z) = 0$:
237   \begin{equation}
238 < 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)
238 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} K_c^\alpha \alpha^2 = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
239 > K_c^\alpha -J_z \Delta t
240   \label{eq:fluxEllipsoid}
241   \end{equation}
242 < The spatial extent of the {\it flux ellipsoid} is governed both by a
243 < targetted value, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values of the
244 < kinetic energy components in the hot bin.
242 > The spatial extent of the {\it thermal flux ellipsoid} is governed
243 > both by the target flux, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values of
244 > the kinetic energy components in the cold bin.
245  
246   To satisfy an energetic flux as well as the conservation constraints,
247 < it is sufficient to determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
247 > we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ that lie on both the constraint
248 > ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the flux ellipsoid
249 > (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of the two
250 > ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
251 >
252 > \begin{figure}
253 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ellipsoids}
254 > \caption{Velocity scaling coefficients which maintain both constant
255 >  energy and constant linear momentum of the system lie on the surface
256 >  of the {\it constraint ellipsoid} while points which generate the
257 >  target momentum flux lie on the surface of the {\it flux ellipsoid}.
258 >  The velocity distributions in the cold bin are scaled by only those
259 >  points which lie on both ellipsoids.}
260 > \label{ellipsoids}
261 > \end{figure}
262 >
263 > Since ellipsoids can be expressed as polynomials up to second order in
264 > each of the three coordinates, finding the the intersection points of
265 > two ellipsoids is isomorphic to finding the roots a polynomial of
266 > degree 16.  There are a number of polynomial root-finding methods in
267 > the literature, [CITATIONS NEEDED] but numerically finding the roots
268 > of high-degree polynomials is generally an ill-conditioned
269 > problem.[CITATION NEEDED] One way around this is to try to maintain
270 > velocity scalings that are {\it as isotropic as possible}.  To do
271 > this, we impose $x=y$, and to treat both the constraint and flux
272 > ellipsoids as 2-dimensional ellipses.  In reduced dimensionality, the
273 > intersecting-ellipse problem reduces to finding the roots of
274 > polynomials of degree 4.
275 >
276 > Depending on the target flux and current velocity distributions, the
277 > ellipsoids can have between 0 and 4 intersection points.  If there are
278 > no intersection points, it is not possible to satisfy the constraints
279 > while performing a non-equilibrium scaling move, and no change is made
280 > to the dynamics.  
281 >
282 > With multiple intersection points, any of the scaling points will
283 > conserve the linear momentum and kinetic energy of the system and will
284 > generate the correct target flux.  Although this method is inherently
285 > non-isotropic, the goal is still to maintain the system as close to an
286 > isotropic fluid as possible.  With this in mind, we would like the
287 > kinetic energies in the three different directions could become as
288 > close as each other as possible after each scaling.  Simultaneously,
289 > one would also like each scaling as gentle as possible, i.e. ${x,y,z
290 >  \rightarrow 1}$, in order to avoid large perturbation to the system.
291 > To do this, we pick the intersection point which maintains the scaling
292 > variables ${x=y, z}$ as well as the ratio of kinetic energies
293 > ${K_c^z/K_c^x, K_c^z/K_c^y}$ as close as possible to 1.
294 >
295 > After the valid scaling parameters are arrived at by solving geometric
296 > intersection problems in $x, y, z$ space in order to obtain cold slab
297 > scaling parameters, Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}) is used to
298 > determine the conjugate hot slab scaling variables.
299 >
300 > \subsection{Introducing shear stress via velocity scaling}
301 > Rather than using this method to induce a thermal flux, it is possible
302 > to use the random fluctuations of the average momentum in each of the
303 > bins to induce a momentum flux.  Doing this repeatedly will create a
304 > shear stress on the system which will respond with an easily-measured
305 > strain.  The momentum flux (say along the $x$-direction) may be
306 > defined as:
307 > \begin{equation}
308 > (1-x) P_c^x = j_z(p_x)\Delta t
309 > \label{eq:fluxPlane}
310 > \end{equation}
311 > This {\it momentum flux plane} is perpendicular to the $x$-axis, with
312 > its position governed both by a target value, $j_z(p_x)$ as well as
313 > the instantaneous value of the momentum along the $x$-direction.
314 >
315 > In order to satisfy a momentum flux as well as the conservation
316 > constraints, we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
317   the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
318 < flux ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of
319 < the two ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
318 > flux plane (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}), i.e. the intersection of an
319 > ellipsoid and a plane in 3-dimensional space.
320  
321 < One may also define momentum flux (say along the x-direction) as:
321 > In the case of momentum flux transfer, we also impose another
322 > constraint to set the kinetic energy transfer as zero. In another
323 > word, we apply Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid} and let ${J_z = 0}$.  With
324 > one variable fixed by Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, one now have a similar
325 > set of quartic equations to the above kinetic energy transfer problem.
326 >
327 > \section{Computational Details}
328 >
329 > We have implemented this methodology in our molecular dynamics
330 > code,\cite{Meineke:2005gd} by performing the NIVS scaling moves after
331 > each MD step.  We have tested it for a variety of different
332 > situations, including homogeneous fluids (Lennard-Jones and SPC/E
333 > water), crystalline solids (EAM and Sutton-Chen models for Gold), and
334 > heterogeneous interfaces (QSC gold - SPC/E water). The last of these
335 > systems would have been very difficult to study using previous RNEMD
336 > methods, but using velocity scaling moves, we can even obtain
337 > estimates of the interfacial thermal conductivity.
338 >
339 > \subsection{Lennard-Jones Fluid}
340 >
341 > 2592 Lennard-Jones atoms were placed in an orthorhombic cell
342 > ${10.06\sigma \times 10.06\sigma \times 30.18\sigma}$ on a side.  The
343 > reduced density ${\rho^* = \rho\sigma^3}$ was thus 0.85, which enabled
344 > direct comparison between our results and previous methods.  These
345 > simulations were carried out with a reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
346 >  4.6\times10^{-4}}$.  For the shear viscosity calculation, the mean
347 > temperature was ${T^* = k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$.  Simulations were
348 > first thermalized in canonical ensemble (NVT), then equilibrated in
349 > microcanonical ensemble (NVE) before introducing any non-equilibrium
350 > method.
351 >
352 > We have compared the momentum gradients established using our method
353 > to those obtained using the original M\"{u}ller-Plathe swapping
354 > algorithm.\cite{ISI:000080382700030} In both cases, the simulation box
355 > was divided into ${N = 20}$ slabs.  In the swapping algorithm, the top
356 > slab $(n = 1)$ exchanges the most negative $x$ momentum with the most
357 > positive $x$ momentum in the center slab $(n = N/2 + 1)$.  The rate at
358 > which the swapping moves are carried out defines the momentum or
359 > thermal flux between the two slabs.  In their work, Tenney {\it et
360 >  al.}\cite{Maginn:2010} found problematic behavior with large swap
361 > frequencies.
362 >
363 > According to each result from swapping RNEMD, scaling RNEMD
364 > simulations were run with the target momentum flux set to produce a
365 > similar momentum flux, and consequently shear rate.  Furthermore,
366 > various scaling frequencies can be tested for one single swapping
367 > rate. To test the temperature homogeneity in our system of swapping
368 > and scaling methods, temperatures of different dimensions in all the
369 > slabs were observed.  Most of the simulations include $10^5$ steps of
370 > equilibration without imposing momentum flux, $10^5$ steps of
371 > stablization with imposing unphysical momentum transfer, and $10^6$
372 > steps of data collection under RNEMD. For relatively high momentum
373 > flux simulations, ${5\times10^5}$ step data collection is sufficient.
374 > For some low momentum flux simulations, ${2\times10^6}$ steps were
375 > necessary.
376 >
377 > After each simulation, the shear viscosity was calculated in reduced
378 > unit. The momentum flux was calculated with total unphysical
379 > transferred momentum ${P_x}$ and data collection time $t$:
380   \begin{equation}
381 < (1-x) P_c^x  = j_z(p_x)
381 > j_z(p_x) = \frac{P_x}{2 t L_x L_y}
382 > \end{equation}
383 > where $L_x$ and $L_y$ denotes $x$ and $y$ lengths of the simulation
384 > box, and physical momentum transfer occurs in two ways due to our
385 > periodic boundary condition settings. And the velocity gradient
386 > ${\langle \partial v_x /\partial z \rangle}$ can be obtained by a
387 > linear regression of the velocity profile. From the shear viscosity
388 > $\eta$ calculated with the above parameters, one can further convert
389 > it into reduced unit ${\eta^* = \eta \sigma^2 (\varepsilon m)^{-1/2}}$.
390 >
391 > For thermal conductivity calculations, simulations were first run under
392 > reduced temperature ${\langle T^*\rangle = 0.72}$ in NVE
393 > ensemble. Muller-Plathe's algorithm was adopted in the swapping
394 > method. Under identical simulation box parameters with our shear
395 > viscosity calculations, in each swap, the top slab exchanges all three
396 > translational momentum components of the molecule with least kinetic
397 > energy with the same components of the molecule in the center slab
398 > with most kinetic energy, unless this ``coldest'' molecule in the
399 > ``hot'' slab is still ``hotter'' than the ``hottest'' molecule in the
400 > ``cold'' slab. According to swapping RNEMD results, target energy flux
401 > for scaling RNEMD simulations can be set. Also, various scaling
402 > frequencies can be tested for one target energy flux. To compare the
403 > performance between swapping and scaling method, distributions of
404 > velocity and speed in different slabs were observed.
405 >
406 > For each swapping rate, thermal conductivity was calculated in reduced
407 > unit. The energy flux was calculated similarly to the momentum flux,
408 > with total unphysical transferred energy ${E_{total}}$ and data collection
409 > time $t$:
410 > \begin{equation}
411 > J_z = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y}
412 > \end{equation}
413 > And the temperature gradient ${\langle\partial T/\partial z\rangle}$
414 > can be obtained by a linear regression of the temperature
415 > profile. From the thermal conductivity $\lambda$ calculated, one can
416 > further convert it into reduced unit ${\lambda^*=\lambda \sigma^2
417 >  m^{1/2} k_B^{-1}\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$.
418 >
419 > \subsection{ Water / Metal Thermal Conductivity}
420 > Another series of our simulation is the calculation of interfacial
421 > thermal conductivity of a Au/H$_2$O system. Respective calculations of
422 > liquid water (Extended Simple Point Charge model) and crystal gold
423 > thermal conductivity were performed and compared with current results
424 > to ensure the validity of NIVS-RNEMD. After that, a mixture system was
425 > simulated.
426 >
427 > For thermal conductivity calculation of bulk water, a simulation box
428 > consisting of 1000 molecules were first equilibrated under ambient
429 > pressure and temperature conditions using NPT ensemble, followed by
430 > equilibration in fixed volume (NVT). The system was then equilibrated in
431 > microcanonical ensemble (NVE). Also in NVE ensemble, establishing a
432 > stable thermal gradient was followed. The simulation box was under
433 > periodic boundary condition and devided into 10 slabs. Data collection
434 > process was similar to Lennard-Jones fluid system.
435 >
436 > Thermal conductivity calculation of bulk crystal gold used a similar
437 > protocol. Two types of force field parameters, Embedded Atom Method
438 > (EAM) and Quantum Sutten-Chen (QSC) force field were used
439 > respectively. The face-centered cubic crystal simulation box consists of
440 > 2880 Au atoms. The lattice was first allowed volume change to relax
441 > under ambient temperature and pressure. Equilibrations in canonical and
442 > microcanonical ensemble were followed in order. With the simulation
443 > lattice devided evenly into 10 slabs, different thermal gradients were
444 > established by applying a set of target thermal transfer flux. Data of
445 > the series of thermal gradients was collected for calculation.
446 >
447 > After simulations of bulk water and crystal gold, a mixture system was
448 > constructed, consisting of 1188 Au atoms and 1862 H$_2$O
449 > molecules. Spohr potential was adopted in depicting the interaction
450 > between metal atom and water molecule.\cite{ISI:000167766600035} A
451 > similar protocol of equilibration was followed. Several thermal
452 > gradients was built under different target thermal flux. It was found
453 > out that compared to our previous simulation systems, the two phases
454 > could have large temperature difference even under a relatively low
455 > thermal flux. Therefore, under our low flux conditions, it is assumed
456 > that the metal and water phases have respectively homogeneous
457 > temperature, excluding the surface regions. In calculating the
458 > interfacial thermal conductivity $G$, this assumptioin was applied and
459 > thus our formula becomes:
460 >
461 > \begin{equation}
462 > G = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y \left( \langle T_{gold}\rangle -
463 >    \langle T_{water}\rangle \right)}
464 > \label{interfaceCalc}
465   \end{equation}
466 + where ${E_{total}}$ is the imposed unphysical kinetic energy transfer
467 + and ${\langle T_{gold}\rangle}$ and ${\langle T_{water}\rangle}$ are the
468 + average observed temperature of gold and water phases respectively.
469  
470 + \section{Results And Discussions}
471 + \subsection{Thermal Conductivity}
472 + \subsubsection{Lennard-Jones Fluid}
473 + Our thermal conductivity calculations show that scaling method results
474 + agree with swapping method. Four different exchange intervals were
475 + tested (Table \ref{thermalLJRes}) using swapping method. With a fixed
476 + 10fs exchange interval, target exchange kinetic energy was set to
477 + produce equivalent kinetic energy flux as in swapping method. And
478 + similar thermal gradients were observed with similar thermal flux in
479 + two simulation methods (Figure \ref{thermalGrad}).
480  
481 + \begin{table*}
482 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
483 + \begin{center}
484  
485 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of Lennard-Jones
486 +  fluid at ${\langle T^* \rangle = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with
487 +  swap and scale methods at various kinetic energy exchange rates. Results
488 +  in reduced unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses.}
489  
490 + \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
491 + Swapping method & & & NIVS-RNEMD\\
492 + \hline
493 + Swap Interval (fs) & $\lambda^*_{swap}$ & & Equilvalent $J_z^*$ &
494 + $\lambda^*_{scale}$\\
495 + \hline
496 + 250  & 7.03(0.34) & & 0.16  & 7.30(0.10)\\
497 + 500  & 7.03(0.14) & & 0.09  & 6.95(0.09)\\
498 + 1000 & 6.91(0.42) & & 0.047 & 7.19(0.07)\\
499 + 2000 & 7.52(0.15) & & 0.024 & 7.19(0.28)\\
500 + \hline
501 + \end{tabular}
502 + \label{thermalLJRes}
503 + \end{center}
504 + \end{minipage}
505 + \end{table*}
506  
507 + \begin{figure}
508 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalGrad}
509 + \caption{NIVS-RNEMD method introduced similar temperature gradients
510 +  compared to ``swapping'' method under various kinetic energy flux in
511 +  thermal conductivity simulations.}
512 + \label{thermalGrad}
513 + \end{figure}
514 +
515 + During these simulations, molecule velocities were recorded in 1000 of
516 + all the snapshots of one single data collection process. These
517 + velocity data were used to produce histograms of velocity and speed
518 + distribution in different slabs. From these histograms, it is observed
519 + that under relatively high unphysical kinetic energy flux, speed and
520 + velocity distribution of molecules in slabs where swapping occured
521 + could deviate from Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Figure
522 + \ref{thermalHist} a) illustrates how these distributions deviate from an
523 + ideal distribution. In high temperature slab, probability density in
524 + low speed is confidently smaller than ideal curve fit; in low
525 + temperature slab, probability density in high speed is smaller than
526 + ideal, while larger than ideal in low speed. This phenomenon is more
527 + obvious in our high swapping rate simulations. And this deviation
528 + could also leads to deviation of distribution of velocity in various
529 + dimensions. One feature of these deviated distribution is that in high
530 + temperature slab, the ideal Gaussian peak was changed into a
531 + relatively flat plateau; while in low temperature slab, that peak
532 + appears sharper. This problem is rooted in the mechanism of the
533 + swapping method. Continually depleting low (high) speed particles in
534 + the high (low) temperature slab could not be complemented by
535 + diffusions of low (high) speed particles from neighbor slabs, unless
536 + in suffciently low swapping rate. Simutaneously, surplus low speed
537 + particles in the low temperature slab do not have sufficient time to
538 + diffuse to neighbor slabs. However, thermal exchange rate should reach
539 + a minimum level to produce an observable thermal gradient under noise
540 + interference. Consequently, swapping RNEMD has a relatively narrow
541 + choice of swapping rate to satisfy these above restrictions.
542 +
543 + Comparatively, NIVS-RNEMD has a speed distribution closer to the ideal
544 + curve fit (Figure \ref{thermalHist} b). Essentially, after scaling, a
545 + Gaussian distribution function would remain Gaussian. Although a
546 + single scaling is non-isotropic in all three dimensions, our scaling
547 + coefficient criteria could help maintian the scaling region as
548 + isotropic as possible. On the other hand, scaling coefficients are
549 + preferred to be as close to 1 as possible, which also helps minimize
550 + the difference among different dimensions. This is possible if scaling
551 + interval and one-time thermal transfer energy are well
552 + chosen. Consequently, NIVS-RNEMD is able to impose an unphysical
553 + thermal flux as the previous RNEMD method without large perturbation
554 + to the distribution of velocity and speed in the exchange regions.
555 +
556 + \begin{figure}
557 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalHist}
558 + \caption{Speed distribution for thermal conductivity using a)
559 +  ``swapping'' and b) NIVS- RNEMD methods. Shown is from the
560 +  simulations with an exchange or equilvalent exchange interval of 250
561 +  fs. In circled areas, distributions from ``swapping'' RNEMD
562 +  simulation have deviation from ideal Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution
563 +  (curves fit for each distribution).}
564 + \label{thermalHist}
565 + \end{figure}
566 +
567 + \subsubsection{SPC/E Water}
568 + Our results of SPC/E water thermal conductivity are comparable to
569 + Bedrov {\it et al.}\cite{Bedrov:2000}, which employed the
570 + previous swapping RNEMD method for their calculation. Bedrov {\it et
571 +  al.}\cite{Bedrov:2000} argued that exchange of the molecule
572 + center-of-mass velocities instead of single atom velocities in a
573 + molecule conserves the total kinetic energy and linear momentum. This
574 + principle is adopted in our simulations. Scaling is applied to the
575 + velocities of the rigid bodies of SPC/E model water molecules, instead
576 + of each hydrogen and oxygen atoms in relevant water molecules. As
577 + shown in Figure \ref{spceGrad}, temperature gradients were established
578 + similar to their system. However, the average temperature of our
579 + system is 300K, while theirs is 318K, which would be attributed for
580 + part of the difference between the final calculation results (Table
581 + \ref{spceThermal}). Both methods yields values in agreement with
582 + experiment. And this shows the applicability of our method to
583 + multi-atom molecular system.
584 +
585 + \begin{figure}
586 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spceGrad}
587 + \caption{Temperature gradients in SPC/E water thermal conductivity
588 +  simulations.}
589 + \label{spceGrad}
590 + \end{figure}
591 +
592 + \begin{table*}
593 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
594 + \begin{center}
595 +
596 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of SPC/E water
597 +  at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various thermal exchange rates. Errors of
598 +  calculations in parentheses. }
599 +
600 + \begin{tabular}{cccc}
601 + \hline
602 + $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & & $\lambda$(W/m/K) & \\
603 + & This work & Previous simulations\cite{Bedrov:2000} &
604 + Experiment[CiteWagnerKruseBook]\\
605 + \hline
606 + 0.38 & 0.816(0.044) & & 0.64\\
607 + 0.81 & 0.770(0.008) & 0.784\\
608 + 1.54 & 0.813(0.007) & 0.730\\
609 + \hline
610 + \end{tabular}
611 + \label{spceThermal}
612 + \end{center}
613 + \end{minipage}
614 + \end{table*}
615 +
616 + \subsubsection{Crystal Gold}
617 + Our results of gold thermal conductivity using two force fields are
618 + shown in Table \ref{AuThermal}. In these calculations,the end and
619 + middle slabs were excluded in thermal gradient regession and only used
620 + as heat source and drain in the systems. Our yielded values using EAM
621 + force field are slightly larger than those using QSC force
622 + field. However, both series are significantly smaller than
623 + experimental value by a factor of more than 200. It has been verified
624 + that this difference is mainly attributed to the lack of electron
625 + interaction representation in these force field parameters. Richardson
626 + {\it et al.}\cite{Clancy:1992} used EAM force field parameters in
627 + their metal thermal conductivity calculations. The Non-Equilibrium MD
628 + method they employed in their simulations produced comparable results
629 + to ours. As Zhang {\it et al.}\cite{ISI:000231042800044} stated,
630 + thermal conductivity values are influenced mainly by force
631 + field. Another factor that affects the calculation results could be
632 + the density of the metal. Simulations were run with and without
633 + isobaric-isothermal (NPT) equilibration. When equilibrated under NPT
634 + conditions, our crystall simulation cell expanded by the order of 1\%
635 + (Table \ref{AuThermal}). Under larger lattice constant than default,
636 + lower thermal conductance were expected and observed. Furthermore,
637 + from our simulations, a decrease of thermal conductance at higher
638 + temperature is observed, and this trend agrees with experimental
639 + measurements[CiteAshcroftMerminBook]. Therefore, it is confident to apply NIVS-RNEMD
640 + to metal force field systems.
641 +
642 + \begin{table*}
643 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
644 + \begin{center}
645 +
646 + \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of crystal gold
647 +  using different force fields at different temperatures and  various
648 +  thermal exchange rates. Errors of calculations in parentheses.}
649 +
650 + \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
651 + \hline
652 + Force Field Used & $\rho$ (g/cm$^3$) & ${\langle T\rangle}$ (K) &
653 + $\langle dT/dz\rangle$ (K/\AA) & $\lambda$ (W/m/K)\\
654 + \hline
655 + QSC & 19.188 & 300 & 1.44 & 1.10(0.06)\\
656 +    &        &     & 2.86 & 1.08(0.05)\\
657 +    &        &     & 5.14 & 1.15(0.07)\\
658 + \\
659 +    & 19.263 & 300 & 2.31 & 1.25(0.06)\\
660 +    &        &     & 3.02 & 1.26(0.05)\\
661 +    &        & 575 & 3.02 & 1.02(0.07)\\
662 +    &        &     & 4.84 & 0.92(0.05)\\
663 + \\
664 + \hline
665 + EAM & 19.045 & 300 & 1.24 & 1.24(0.16)\\
666 +    &        &     & 2.06 & 1.37(0.04)\\
667 +    &        &     & 2.55 & 1.41(0.07)\\
668 + \\
669 +    & 19.263 & 300 & 1.06 & 1.45(0.13)\\
670 +    &        &     & 2.04 & 1.41(0.07)\\
671 +    &        &     & 2.41 & 1.53(0.10)\\
672 +    &        & 575 & 2.82 & 1.08(0.03)\\
673 +    &        &     & 4.14 & 1.08(0.05)\\
674 + \hline
675 + \end{tabular}
676 + \label{AuThermal}
677 + \end{center}
678 + \end{minipage}
679 + \end{table*}
680 +
681 +
682 + \subsection{Interfaciel Thermal Conductivity}
683 + After simulations of homogeneous water and gold systems using
684 + NIVS-RNEMD method were proved valid, calculation of gold/water
685 + interfacial thermal conductivity was followed. It is found out that
686 + the low interfacial conductance is probably due to the hydrophobic
687 + surface in our system. Figure \ref{interface} (a) demonstrates mass
688 + density change along $z$-axis, which is perpendicular to the
689 + gold/water interface. It is observed that water density significantly
690 + decreases when approaching the surface. Under this low thermal
691 + conductance, both gold and water phase have sufficient time to
692 + eliminate temperature difference inside respectively (Figure
693 + \ref{interface} b). With indistinguishable temperature difference
694 + within respective phase, it is valid to assume that the temperature
695 + difference between gold and water on surface would be approximately
696 + the same as the difference between the gold and water phase. This
697 + assumption enables convenient calculation of $G$ using
698 + Eq. \ref{interfaceCalc} instead of measuring temperatures of thin
699 + layer of water and gold close enough to surface, which would have
700 + greater fluctuation and lower accuracy. Reported results (Table
701 + \ref{interfaceRes}) are of two orders of magnitude smaller than our
702 + calculations on homogeneous systems, and thus have larger relative
703 + errors than our calculation results on homogeneous systems.
704 +
705 + \begin{figure}
706 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interface}
707 + \caption{Simulation results for Gold/Water interfacial thermal
708 +  conductivity: (a) Significant water density decrease is observed on
709 +  crystalline gold surface, which indicates low surface contact and
710 +  leads to low thermal conductance. (b) Temperature profiles for a
711 +  series of simulations. Temperatures of different slabs in the same
712 +  phase show no significant differences.}
713 + \label{interface}
714 + \end{figure}
715 +
716 + \begin{table*}
717 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
718 + \begin{center}
719 +
720 + \caption{Calculation results for interfacial thermal conductivity
721 +  at ${\langle T\rangle \sim}$ 300K at various thermal exchange
722 +  rates. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
723 +
724 + \begin{tabular}{cccc}
725 + \hline
726 + $J_z$ (MW/m$^2$) & $T_{gold}$ (K) & $T_{water}$ (K) & $G$
727 + (MW/m$^2$/K)\\
728 + \hline
729 + 98.0 & 355.2 & 295.8 & 1.65(0.21) \\
730 + 78.8 & 343.8 & 298.0 & 1.72(0.32) \\
731 + 73.6 & 344.3 & 298.0 & 1.59(0.24) \\
732 + 49.2 & 330.1 & 300.4 & 1.65(0.35) \\
733 + \hline
734 + \end{tabular}
735 + \label{interfaceRes}
736 + \end{center}
737 + \end{minipage}
738 + \end{table*}
739 +
740 + \subsection{Shear Viscosity}
741 + Our calculations (Table \ref{shearRate}) shows that scale RNEMD method
742 + produced comparable shear viscosity to swap RNEMD method. In Table
743 + \ref{shearRate}, the names of the calculated samples are devided into
744 + two parts. The first number refers to total slabs in one simulation
745 + box. The second number refers to the swapping interval in swap method, or
746 + in scale method the equilvalent swapping interval that the same
747 + momentum flux would theoretically result in swap method. All the scale
748 + method results were from simulations that had a scaling interval of 10
749 + time steps. The average molecular momentum gradients of these samples
750 + are shown in Figure \ref{shear} (a) and (b).
751 +
752 + \begin{table*}
753 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
754 + \begin{center}
755 +
756 + \caption{Calculation results for shear viscosity of Lennard-Jones
757 +  fluid at ${T^* = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with swap and scale
758 +  methods at various momentum exchange rates. Results in reduced
759 +  unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
760 +
761 + \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
762 + Swapping method & & & NIVS-RNEMD & \\
763 + \hline
764 + Swap Interval (fs) & $\eta^*_{swap}$ & & Equilvalent $j_p^*(v_x)$ &
765 + $\eta^*_{scale}$\\
766 + \hline
767 + 500  & 3.64(0.05) & & 0.09  & 3.76(0.09)\\
768 + 1000 & 3.52(0.16) & & 0.046 & 3.66(0.06)\\
769 + 2000 & 3.72(0.05) & & 0.024 & 3.32(0.18)\\
770 + 2500 & 3.42(0.06) & & 0.019 & 3.43(0.08)\\
771 + \hline
772 + \end{tabular}
773 + \label{shearRate}
774 + \end{center}
775 + \end{minipage}
776 + \end{table*}
777 +
778 + \begin{figure}
779 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shear}
780 + \caption{Average momentum gradients in shear viscosity simulations,
781 +  using (a) ``swapping'' method and (b) NIVS-RNEMD method
782 +  respectively. (c) Temperature difference among x and y, z dimensions
783 +  observed when using NIVS-RNEMD with equivalent exchange interval of
784 +  500 fs.}
785 + \label{shear}
786 + \end{figure}
787 +
788 + However, observations of temperatures along three dimensions show that
789 + inhomogeneity occurs in scaling RNEMD simulations, particularly in the
790 + two slabs which were scaled. Figure \ref{shear} (c) indicate that with
791 + relatively large imposed momentum flux, the temperature difference among $x$
792 + and the other two dimensions was significant. This would result from the
793 + algorithm of scaling method. From Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, after
794 + momentum gradient is set up, $P_c^x$ would be roughly stable
795 + ($<0$). Consequently, scaling factor $x$ would most probably larger
796 + than 1. Therefore, the kinetic energy in $x$-dimension $K_c^x$ would
797 + keep increase after most scaling steps. And if there is not enough time
798 + for the kinetic energy to exchange among different dimensions and
799 + different slabs, the system would finally build up temperature
800 + (kinetic energy) difference among the three dimensions. Also, between
801 + $y$ and $z$ dimensions in the scaled slabs, temperatures of $z$-axis
802 + are closer to neighbor slabs. This is due to momentum transfer along
803 + $z$ dimension between slabs.
804 +
805 + Although results between scaling and swapping methods are comparable,
806 + the inherent temperature inhomogeneity even in relatively low imposed
807 + exchange momentum flux simulations makes scaling RNEMD method less
808 + attractive than swapping RNEMD in shear viscosity calculation.
809 +
810 + \section{Conclusions}
811 + NIVS-RNEMD simulation method is developed and tested on various
812 + systems. Simulation results demonstrate its validity in thermal
813 + conductivity calculations, from Lennard-Jones fluid to multi-atom
814 + molecule like water and metal crystals. NIVS-RNEMD improves
815 + non-Boltzmann-Maxwell distributions, which exist in previous RNEMD
816 + methods. Furthermore, it develops a valid means for unphysical thermal
817 + transfer between different species of molecules, and thus extends its
818 + applicability to interfacial systems. Our calculation of gold/water
819 + interfacial thermal conductivity demonstrates this advantage over
820 + previous RNEMD methods. NIVS-RNEMD has also limited application on
821 + shear viscosity calculations, but could cause temperature difference
822 + among different dimensions under high momentum flux. Modification is
823 + necessary to extend the applicability of NIVS-RNEMD in shear viscosity
824 + calculations.
825 +
826   \section{Acknowledgments}
827   Support for this project was provided by the National Science
828   Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational time was provided by
829   the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the University of Notre
830   Dame.  \newpage
831  
832 < \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
832 > \bibliographystyle{aip}
833   \bibliography{nivsRnemd}
834 +
835   \end{doublespace}
836   \end{document}
837  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines