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 3571 by skuang, Wed Mar 10 21:38:42 2010 UTC vs.
Revision 3609 by gezelter, Wed Jul 14 14:41:57 2010 UTC

# Line 6 | Line 6
6   \usepackage{caption}
7   %\usepackage{tabularx}
8   \usepackage{graphicx}
9 + \usepackage{multirow}
10   %\usepackage{booktabs}
11   %\usepackage{bibentry}
12   %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
# Line 38 | Line 39 | Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
39   \begin{doublespace}
40  
41   \begin{abstract}
42 <
42 >  We present a new method for introducing stable non-equilibrium
43 >  velocity and temperature distributions in molecular dynamics
44 >  simulations of heterogeneous systems.  This method extends earlier
45 >  Reverse Non-Equilibrium Molecular Dynamics (RNEMD) methods which use
46 >  momentum exchange swapping moves that can create non-thermal
47 >  velocity distributions and are difficult to use for interfacial
48 >  calculations.  By using non-isotropic velocity scaling (NIVS) on the
49 >  molecules in specific regions of a system, it is possible to impose
50 >  momentum or thermal flux between regions of a simulation and stable
51 >  thermal and momentum gradients can then be established.  The scaling
52 >  method we have developed conserves the total linear momentum and
53 >  total energy of the system.  To test the methods, we have computed
54 >  the thermal conductivity of model liquid and solid systems as well
55 >  as the interfacial thermal conductivity of a metal-water interface.
56 >  We find that the NIVS-RNEMD improves the problematic velocity
57 >  distributions that develop in other RNEMD 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,ISI:000080382700030} 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,
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}
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\cite{ISI:000273472300004}
119   typically samples from the same manifold of states in the
120   microcanonical ensemble.
121  
122 < Recently, Tenney and Maginn\cite{ISI:000273472300004} have discovered
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 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.
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}{ccc}
155   x & 0 & 0 \\
# Line 129 | Line 157 | where ${x, y, z}$ are a set of 3 scaling variables for
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}{ccc}
166   x^\prime & 0 & 0 \\
# Line 141 | Line 170 | Conservation of linear momentum in each of the three d
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
# Line 170 | Line 199 | where the kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and $K_c^\alp
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
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
# Line 188 | Line 219 | This ellipsoid equation defines the set of cold slab s
219   c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha
220   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoidConsts}
221   \end{eqnarray}
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 kinetic energy.
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 > kinetic energy from the cold slab to the hot slab.  If the hot and
229 > cold slabs are separated along the z-axis, the energy flux is given
230 > simply by the decrease in kinetic energy of the cold bin:
231   \begin{equation}
232   (1-x^2) K_c^x  + (1-y^2) K_c^y + (1-z^2) K_c^z = J_z\Delta t
233   \end{equation}
234   The expression for the energy flux can be re-written as another
235   ellipsoid centered on $(x,y,z) = 0$:
236   \begin{equation}
237 < 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
237 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} K_c^\alpha \alpha^2 = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
238 > K_c^\alpha -J_z \Delta t
239   \label{eq:fluxEllipsoid}
240   \end{equation}
241 < The spatial extent of the {\it flux ellipsoid equation} is governed
242 < both by a targetted value, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values of the
243 < kinetic energy components in the cold bin.
241 > The spatial extent of the {\it thermal flux ellipsoid} is governed
242 > both by the target flux, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values of
243 > the kinetic energy components in the cold bin.
244  
245   To satisfy an energetic flux as well as the conservation constraints,
246 < it is sufficient to determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
247 < the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
248 < flux ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of
249 < the two ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
246 > we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ that lie on both the constraint
247 > ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the flux ellipsoid
248 > (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of the two
249 > ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
250  
251   \begin{figure}
252   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ellipsoids}
253 < \caption{Scaling points which maintain both constant energy and
254 <  constant linear momentum of the system lie on the surface of the
255 <  {\it constraint ellipsoid} while points which generate the target
256 <  momentum flux lie on the surface of the {\it flux ellipsoid}.  The
257 <  velocity distributions in the hot bin are scaled by only those
253 > \caption{Velocity scaling coefficients which maintain both constant
254 >  energy and constant linear momentum of the system lie on the surface
255 >  of the {\it constraint ellipsoid} while points which generate the
256 >  target momentum flux lie on the surface of the {\it flux ellipsoid}.
257 >  The velocity distributions in the cold bin are scaled by only those
258    points which lie on both ellipsoids.}
259   \label{ellipsoids}
260   \end{figure}
261  
262 < One may also define momentum flux (say along the x-direction) as:
262 > Since ellipsoids can be expressed as polynomials up to second order in
263 > each of the three coordinates, finding the the intersection points of
264 > two ellipsoids is isomorphic to finding the roots a polynomial of
265 > degree 16.  There are a number of polynomial root-finding methods in
266 > the literature, [CITATIONS NEEDED] but numerically finding the roots
267 > of high-degree polynomials is generally an ill-conditioned
268 > problem.[CITATION NEEDED] One simplification is to maintain velocity
269 > scalings that are {\it as isotropic as possible}.  To do this, we
270 > impose $x=y$, and to treat both the constraint and flux ellipsoids as
271 > 2-dimensional ellipses.  In reduced dimensionality, the
272 > intersecting-ellipse problem reduces to finding the roots of
273 > polynomials of degree 4.
274 >
275 > Depending on the target flux and current velocity distributions, the
276 > ellipsoids can have between 0 and 4 intersection points.  If there are
277 > no intersection points, it is not possible to satisfy the constraints
278 > while performing a non-equilibrium scaling move, and no change is made
279 > to the dynamics.  
280 >
281 > With multiple intersection points, any of the scaling points will
282 > conserve the linear momentum and kinetic energy of the system and will
283 > generate the correct target flux.  Although this method is inherently
284 > non-isotropic, the goal is still to maintain the system as close to an
285 > isotropic fluid as possible.  With this in mind, we would like the
286 > kinetic energies in the three different directions could become as
287 > close as each other as possible after each scaling.  Simultaneously,
288 > one would also like each scaling as gentle as possible, i.e. ${x,y,z
289 >  \rightarrow 1}$, in order to avoid large perturbation to the system.
290 > To do this, we pick the intersection point which maintains the three
291 > scaling variables ${x, y, z}$ as well as the ratio of kinetic energies
292 > ${K_c^z/K_c^x, K_c^z/K_c^y}$ as close as possible to 1.
293 >
294 > After the valid scaling parameters are arrived at by solving geometric
295 > intersection problems in $x, y, z$ space in order to obtain cold slab
296 > scaling parameters, Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}) is used to
297 > determine the conjugate hot slab scaling variables.
298 >
299 > \subsection{Introducing shear stress via velocity scaling}
300 > It is also possible to use this method to magnify the random
301 > fluctuations of the average momentum in each of the bins to induce a
302 > momentum flux.  Doing this repeatedly will create a shear stress on
303 > the system which will respond with an easily-measured strain.  The
304 > momentum flux (say along the $x$-direction) may be defined as:
305   \begin{equation}
306   (1-x) P_c^x = j_z(p_x)\Delta t
307   \label{eq:fluxPlane}
308   \end{equation}
309 < The above {\it flux equation} is essentially a plane which is
310 < perpendicular to the x-axis, with its position governed both by a
311 < targetted value, $j_z(p_x)$ as well as the instantaneous value of the
237 < momentum along the x-direction.
309 > This {\it momentum flux plane} is perpendicular to the $x$-axis, with
310 > its position governed both by a target value, $j_z(p_x)$ as well as
311 > the instantaneous value of the momentum along the $x$-direction.
312  
313 < Similarly, to satisfy a momentum flux as well as the conservation
314 < constraints, it is sufficient to determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which
315 < lie on both the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid})
316 < and the flux plane (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}), i.e. the intersection of
317 < an ellipsoid and a plane in 3-dimensional space.
313 > In order to satisfy a momentum flux as well as the conservation
314 > constraints, we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
315 > the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
316 > flux plane (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}), i.e. the intersection of an
317 > ellipsoid and a plane in 3-dimensional space.
318  
319 < To summarize, by solving respective equation sets, one can determine
320 < possible sets of scaling variables for cold slab. And corresponding
321 < sets of scaling variables for hot slab can be determine as well.
319 > In the case of momentum flux transfer, we also impose another
320 > constraint to set the kinetic energy transfer as zero. In other
321 > words, we apply Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid} and let ${J_z = 0}$.  With
322 > one variable fixed by Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, one now have a similar
323 > set of quartic equations to the above kinetic energy transfer problem.
324  
325 < The following problem will be choosing an optimal set of scaling
250 < variables among the possible sets. Although this method is inherently
251 < non-isotropic, the goal is still to maintain the system as isotropic
252 < as possible. Under this consideration, one would like the kinetic
253 < energies in different directions could become as close as each other
254 < after each scaling. Simultaneously, one would also like each scaling
255 < as gentle as possible, i.e. ${x,y,z \rightarrow 1}$, in order to avoid
256 < large perturbation to the system. Therefore, one approach to obtain the
257 < scaling variables would be constructing an criteria function, with
258 < constraints as above equation sets, and solving the function's minimum
259 < by method like Lagrange multipliers.
325 > \section{Computational Details}
326  
327 < In order to save computation time, we have a different approach to a
328 < relatively good set of scaling variables with much less calculation
329 < than above. Here is the detail of our simplification of the problem.
327 > We have implemented this methodology in our molecular dynamics code,
328 > OpenMD,\cite{Meineke:2005gd,openmd} performing the NIVS scaling moves
329 > after each MD step.  We have tested the method in a variety of
330 > different systems, including homogeneous fluids (Lennard-Jones and
331 > SPC/E water), crystalline solids ({\sc eam}~\cite{PhysRevB.33.7983} and
332 > quantum Sutton-Chen ({\sc q-sc})~\cite{PhysRevB.59.3527}
333 > models for Gold), and heterogeneous interfaces (QSC gold - SPC/E
334 > water). The last of these systems would have been difficult to study
335 > using previous RNEMD methods, but using velocity scaling moves, we can
336 > even obtain estimates of the interfacial thermal conductivities ($G$).
337  
338 < In the case of kinetic energy transfer, we impose another constraint
266 < ${x = y}$, into the equation sets. Consequently, there are two
267 < variables left. And now one only needs to solve a set of two {\it
268 <  ellipses equations}. This problem would be transformed into solving
269 < one quartic equation for one of the two variables. There are known
270 < generic methods that solve real roots of quartic equations. Then one
271 < can determine the other variable and obtain sets of scaling
272 < variables. Among these sets, one can apply the above criteria to
273 < choose the best set, while much faster with only a few sets to choose.
338 > \subsection{Simulation Cells}
339  
340 < In the case of momentum flux transfer, we impose another constraint to
341 < set the kinetic energy transfer as zero. In another word, we apply
342 < Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid} and let ${J_z = 0}$. After that, with one
343 < variable fixed by Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, one now have a similar set
344 < of equations on the above kinetic energy transfer problem. Therefore,
345 < an approach similar to the above would be sufficient for this as well.
340 > In each of the systems studied, the dynamics was carried out in a
341 > rectangular simulation cell using periodic boundary conditions in all
342 > three dimensions.  The cells were longer along the $z$ axis and the
343 > space was divided into $N$ slabs along this axis (typically $N=20$).
344 > The top slab ($n=1$) was designated the ``cold'' slab, while the
345 > central slab ($n= N/2 + 1$) was designated the ``hot'' slab.  In all
346 > cases, simulations were first thermalized in canonical ensemble (NVT)
347 > using a Nos\'{e}-Hoover thermostat.\cite{Hoover85} then equilibrated in
348 > microcanonical ensemble (NVE) before introducing any non-equilibrium
349 > method.
350  
351 < \section{Computational Details}
283 < Our simulation consists of a series of systems. All of these
284 < simulations were run with the OpenMD simulation software
285 < package\cite{Meineke:2005gd} integrated with RNEMD methods.
351 > \subsection{RNEMD with M\"{u}ller-Plathe swaps}
352  
353 < A Lennard-Jones fluid system was built and tested first. In order to
354 < compare our method with swapping RNEMD, a series of simulations were
355 < performed to calculate the shear viscosity and thermal conductivity of
290 < argon. 2592 atoms were in a orthorhombic cell, which was ${10.06\sigma
291 <  \times 10.06\sigma \times 30.18\sigma}$ by size. The reduced density
292 < ${\rho^* = \rho\sigma^3}$ was thus 0.85, which enabled direct
293 < comparison between our results and others. These simulations used
294 < velocity Verlet algorithm with reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
295 <  4.6\times10^{-4}}$.
353 > In order to compare our new methodology with the original
354 > M\"{u}ller-Plathe swapping algorithm,\cite{ISI:000080382700030} we
355 > first performed simulations using the original technique.
356  
357 < For shear viscosity calculation, the reduced temperature was ${T^* =
298 <  k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$. Simulations were first equilibrated in canonical
299 < ensemble (NVT), then equilibrated in microcanonical ensemble
300 < (NVE). Establishing and stablizing momentum gradient were followed
301 < also in NVE ensemble. For the swapping part, Muller-Plathe's algorithm was
302 < adopted.\cite{ISI:000080382700030} The simulation box was under
303 < periodic boundary condition, and devided into ${N = 20}$ slabs. In each swap,
304 < the top slab ${(n = 1)}$ exchange the most negative $x$ momentum with the
305 < most positive $x$ momentum in the center slab ${(n = N/2 + 1)}$. Referred
306 < to Tenney {\it et al.}\cite{ISI:000273472300004}, a series of swapping
307 < frequency were chosen. According to each result from swapping
308 < RNEMD, scaling RNEMD simulations were run with the target momentum
309 < flux set to produce a similar momentum flux and shear
310 < rate. Furthermore, various scaling frequencies can be tested for one
311 < single swapping rate. To compare the performance between swapping and
312 < scaling method, temperatures of different dimensions in all the slabs
313 < were observed. Most of the simulations include $10^5$ steps of
314 < equilibration without imposing momentum flux, $10^5$ steps of
315 < stablization with imposing momentum transfer, and $10^6$ steps of data
316 < collection under RNEMD. For relatively high momentum flux simulations,
317 < ${5\times10^5}$ step data collection is sufficient. For some low momentum
318 < flux simulations, ${2\times10^6}$ steps were necessary.
357 > \subsection{RNEMD with NIVS scaling}
358  
359 < After each simulation, the shear viscosity was calculated in reduced
360 < unit. The momentum flux was calculated with total unphysical
361 < transferred momentum ${P_x}$ and data collection time $t$:
359 > For each simulation utilizing the swapping method, a corresponding
360 > NIVS-RNEMD simulation was carried out using a target momentum flux set
361 > to produce a the same momentum or energy flux exhibited in the
362 > swapping simulation.
363 >
364 > To test the temperature homogeneity (and to compute transport
365 > coefficients), directional momentum and temperature distributions were
366 > accumulated for molecules in each of the slabs.
367 >
368 > \subsection{Shear viscosities}
369 >
370 > The momentum flux was calculated using the total non-physical momentum
371 > transferred (${P_x}$) and the data collection time ($t$):
372   \begin{equation}
373   j_z(p_x) = \frac{P_x}{2 t L_x L_y}
374   \end{equation}
375 < And the velocity gradient ${\langle \partial v_x /\partial z \rangle}$
376 < can be obtained by a linear regression of the velocity profile. From
377 < the shear viscosity $\eta$ calculated with the above parameters, one
378 < can further convert it into reduced unit ${\eta^* = \eta \sigma^2
379 <  (\varepsilon  m)^{-1/2}}$.
375 > where $L_x$ and $L_y$ denote the $x$ and $y$ lengths of the simulation
376 > box.  The factor of two in the denominator is present because physical
377 > momentum transfer occurs in two directions due to our periodic
378 > boundary conditions.  The velocity gradient ${\langle \partial v_x
379 >  /\partial z \rangle}$ was obtained using linear regression of the
380 > velocity profiles in the bins.  For Lennard-Jones simulations, shear
381 > viscosities are reporte in reduced units (${\eta^* = \eta \sigma^2
382 >  (\varepsilon m)^{-1/2}}$).
383  
384 < For thermal conductivity calculation, simulations were first run under
333 < reduced temperature ${T^* = 0.72}$ in NVE ensemble. Muller-Plathe's
334 < algorithm was adopted in the swapping method. Under identical
335 < simulation box parameters, in each swap, the top slab exchange the
336 < molecule with least kinetic energy with the molecule in the center
337 < slab with most kinetic energy, unless this ``coldest'' molecule in the
338 < ``hot'' slab is still ``hotter'' than the ``hottest'' molecule in the ``cold''
339 < slab. According to swapping RNEMD results, target energy flux for
340 < scaling RNEMD simulations can be set. Also, various scaling
341 < frequencies can be tested for one target energy flux. To compare the
342 < performance between swapping and scaling method, distributions of
343 < velocity and speed in different slabs were observed.
384 > \subsection{Thermal Conductivities}
385  
386 < For each swapping rate, thermal conductivity was calculated in reduced
387 < unit. The energy flux was calculated similarly to the momentum flux,
388 < with total unphysical transferred energy ${E_{total}}$ and data collection
348 < time $t$:
386 > The energy flux was calculated similarly to the momentum flux, using
387 > the total non-physical energy transferred (${E_{total}}$) and the data
388 > collection time $t$:
389   \begin{equation}
390   J_z = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y}
391   \end{equation}
392 < And the temperature gradient ${\langle\partial T/\partial z\rangle}$
393 < can be obtained by a linear regression of the temperature
394 < profile. From the thermal conductivity $\lambda$ calculated, one can
395 < further convert it into reduced unit ${\lambda^*=\lambda \sigma^2
396 <  m^{1/2} k_B^{-1}\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$.
392 > The temperature gradient ${\langle\partial T/\partial z\rangle}$ was
393 > obtained by a linear regression of the temperature profile. For
394 > Lennard-Jones simulations, thermal conductivities are reported in
395 > reduced units (${\lambda^*=\lambda \sigma^2 m^{1/2}
396 >  k_B^{-1}\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$).
397  
398 < Another series of our simulation is to calculate the interfacial
359 < thermal conductivity of a Au/H${_2}$O system. Respective calculations of
360 < water (SPC/E) and gold (QSC) thermal conductivity were performed and
361 < compared with current results to ensure the validity of
362 < NIVS-RNEMD. After that, the mixture system was simulated.
398 > \subsection{Interfacial Thermal Conductivities}
399  
400 < \section{Results And Discussion}
400 > For materials with a relatively low interfacial conductance, and in
401 > cases where the flux between the materials is small, the bulk regions
402 > on either side of an interface rapidly come to a state in which the
403 > two phases have relatively homogeneous (but distinct) temperatures.
404 > In calculating the interfacial thermal conductivity $G$, this
405 > assumption was made, and the conductance can be approximated as:
406 >
407 > \begin{equation}
408 > G = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y \left( \langle T_{gold}\rangle -
409 >    \langle T_{water}\rangle \right)}
410 > \label{interfaceCalc}
411 > \end{equation}
412 > where ${E_{total}}$ is the imposed non-physical kinetic energy
413 > transfer and ${\langle T_{gold}\rangle}$ and ${\langle
414 >  T_{water}\rangle}$ are the average observed temperature of gold and
415 > water phases respectively.
416 >
417 > \section{Results}
418 >
419 > \subsection{Lennard-Jones Fluid}
420 > 2592 Lennard-Jones atoms were placed in an orthorhombic cell
421 > ${10.06\sigma \times 10.06\sigma \times 30.18\sigma}$ on a side.  The
422 > reduced density ${\rho^* = \rho\sigma^3}$ was thus 0.85, which enabled
423 > direct comparison between our results and previous methods.  These
424 > simulations were carried out with a reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
425 >  4.6\times10^{-4}}$.  For the shear viscosity calculations, the mean
426 > temperature was ${T^* = k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$.  For thermal
427 > conductivity calculations, simulations were first run under reduced
428 > temperature ${\langle T^*\rangle = 0.72}$ in the microcanonical
429 > ensemble, but other temperatures ([XXX, YYY, and ZZZ]) were also
430 > sampled.  The simulations included $10^5$ steps of equilibration
431 > without any momentum flux, $10^5$ steps of stablization with an
432 > imposed momentum transfer to create a gradient, and $10^6$ steps of
433 > data collection under RNEMD.
434 >
435 > Our thermal conductivity calculations show that the NIVS method agrees
436 > well with the swapping method. Four different swap intervals were
437 > tested (Table \ref{thermalLJRes}). With a fixed 10 fs [WHY NOT REDUCED
438 > UNITS???]  scaling interval, the target exchange kinetic energy
439 > produced equivalent kinetic energy flux as in the swapping method.
440 > Similar thermal gradients were observed with similar thermal flux
441 > under the two different methods (Figure \ref{thermalGrad}).
442 >
443 > \begin{table*}
444 >  \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
445 >    \begin{center}
446 >
447 >      \caption{Thermal conductivity (in reduced units) of a
448 >        Lennard-Jones fluid at ${\langle T^* \rangle = 0.72}$ and
449 >        ${\rho^* = 0.85}$ for the swapping and scaling methods at
450 >        various kinetic energy exchange rates. Uncertainties are
451 >        indicated in parentheses.}
452 >      
453 >      \begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
454 >        \hline
455 >        \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Swapping RNEMD} &
456 >        \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{NIVS-RNEMD} \\
457 >        \hline
458 >        Swap Interval (fs) & $\lambda^*_{swap}$ & Equilvalent $J_z^*$ & $\lambda^*_{scale}$\\
459 >        \hline
460 >        250  & 7.03(0.34) & 0.16  & 7.30(0.10)\\
461 >        500  & 7.03(0.14) & 0.09  & 6.95(0.09)\\
462 >        1000 & 6.91(0.42) & 0.047 & 7.19(0.07)\\
463 >        2000 & 7.52(0.15) & 0.024 & 7.19(0.28)\\
464 >        \hline
465 >      \end{tabular}
466 >      \label{thermalLJRes}
467 >    \end{center}
468 >  \end{minipage}
469 > \end{table*}
470 >
471 > \begin{figure}
472 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalGrad}
473 > \caption{NIVS-RNEMD method creates similar temperature gradients
474 >  compared with the swapping method under a variety of imposed kinetic
475 >  energy flux values.}
476 > \label{thermalGrad}
477 > \end{figure}
478 >
479 > During these simulations, velocities were recorded every 1000 steps
480 > and was used to produce distributions of both velocity and speed in
481 > each of the slabs. From these distributions, we observed that under
482 > relatively high non-physical kinetic energy flux, the spee of
483 > molecules in slabs where swapping occured could deviate from the
484 > Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This behavior was also noted by Tenney
485 > and Maginn.\cite{Maginn:2010} Figure \ref{thermalHist} shows how these
486 > distributions deviate from an ideal distribution. In the ``hot'' slab,
487 > the probability density is notched at low speeds and has a substantial
488 > shoulder at higher speeds relative to the ideal MB distribution.  In
489 > the cold slab, the opposite notching and shouldering occurs.  This
490 > phenomenon is more obvious at higher swapping rates.  
491 >
492 > In the velocity distributions, the ideal Gaussian peak is
493 > substantially flattened in the hot slab, and is overly sharp (with
494 > truncated wings) in the cold slab. This problem is rooted in the
495 > mechanism of the swapping method. Continually depleting low (high)
496 > speed particles in the high (low) temperature slab is not complemented
497 > by diffusions of low (high) speed particles from neighboring slabs,
498 > unless the swapping rate is sufficiently small. Simutaneously, surplus
499 > low speed particles in the low temperature slab do not have sufficient
500 > time to diffuse to neighboring slabs.  Since the thermal exchange rate
501 > must reach a minimum level to produce an observable thermal gradient,
502 > the swapping-method RNEMD has a relatively narrow choice of exchange
503 > times that can be utilized.
504 >
505 > For comparison, NIVS-RNEMD produces a speed distribution closer to the
506 > Maxwell-Boltzmann curve (Figure \ref{thermalHist}).  The reason for
507 > this is simple; upon velocity scaling, a Gaussian distribution remains
508 > Gaussian.  Although a single scaling move is non-isotropic in three
509 > dimensions, our criteria for choosing a set of scaling coefficients
510 > helps maintain the distributions as close to isotropic as possible.
511 > Consequently, NIVS-RNEMD is able to impose an unphysical thermal flux
512 > as the previous RNEMD methods but without large perturbations to the
513 > velocity distributions in the two slabs.
514 >
515 > \begin{figure}
516 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalHist}
517 > \caption{Speed distribution for thermal conductivity using a)
518 >  ``swapping'' and b) NIVS- RNEMD methods. Shown is from the
519 >  simulations with an exchange or equilvalent exchange interval of 250
520 >  fs. In circled areas, distributions from ``swapping'' RNEMD
521 >  simulation have deviation from ideal Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution
522 >  (curves fit for each distribution).}
523 > \label{thermalHist}
524 > \end{figure}
525 >
526 > \subsection{Bulk SPC/E water}
527 >
528 > We compared the thermal conductivity of SPC/E water using NIVS-RNEMD
529 > to the work of Bedrov {\it et al.}\cite{Bedrov:2000}, which employed
530 > the original swapping RNEMD method.  Bedrov {\it et
531 >  al.}\cite{Bedrov:2000} argued that exchange of the molecule
532 > center-of-mass velocities instead of single atom velocities in a
533 > molecule conserves the total kinetic energy and linear momentum.  This
534 > principle is also adopted in our simulations. Scaling was applied to
535 > the center-of-mass velocities of the rigid bodies of SPC/E model water
536 > molecules.
537 >
538 > To construct the simulations, a simulation box consisting of 1000
539 > molecules were first equilibrated under ambient pressure and
540 > temperature conditions using the isobaric-isothermal (NPT)
541 > ensemble.\cite{melchionna93} A fixed volume was chosen to match the
542 > average volume observed in the NPT simulations, and this was followed
543 > by equilibration, first in the canonical (NVT) ensemble, followed by a
544 > [XXX ps] period under constant-NVE conditions without any momentum
545 > flux.  [YYY ps] was allowed to stabilize the system with an imposed
546 > momentum transfer to create a gradient, and [ZZZ ps] was alotted for
547 > data collection under RNEMD.
548 >
549 > As shown in Figure \ref{spceGrad}, temperature gradients were
550 > established similar to the previous work.  However, the average
551 > temperature of our system is 300K, while that in Bedrov {\it et al.}
552 > is 318K, which would be attributed for part of the difference between
553 > the final calculation results (Table \ref{spceThermal}). [WHY DIDN'T
554 > WE DO 318 K?]  Both methods yield values in reasonable agreement with
555 > experiment [DONE AT WHAT TEMPERATURE?]
556 >
557 > \begin{figure}
558 >  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spceGrad}
559 >  \caption{Temperature gradients in SPC/E water thermal conductivity
560 >    simulations.}
561 >  \label{spceGrad}
562 > \end{figure}
563 >
564 > \begin{table*}
565 >  \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
566 >    \begin{center}
567 >      
568 >      \caption{Thermal conductivity of SPC/E water under various
569 >        imposed thermal gradients. Uncertainties are indicated in
570 >        parentheses.}
571 >      
572 >      \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
573 >        \hline
574 >        $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\lambda
575 >          (\mathrm{W m}^{-1} \mathrm{K}^{-1})$} \\
576 >        & This work (300K) & Previous simulations (318K)\cite{Bedrov:2000} &
577 >        Experiment\cite{WagnerKruse}\\
578 >        \hline
579 >        0.38 & 0.816(0.044) & & 0.64\\
580 >        0.81 & 0.770(0.008) & 0.784 & \\
581 >        1.54 & 0.813(0.007) & 0.730 & \\
582 >        \hline
583 >      \end{tabular}
584 >      \label{spceThermal}
585 >    \end{center}
586 >  \end{minipage}
587 > \end{table*}
588 >
589 > \subsection{Crystalline Gold}
590 >
591 > To see how the method performed in a solid, we calculated thermal
592 > conductivities using two atomistic models for gold.  Several different
593 > potential models have been developed that reasonably describe
594 > interactions in transition metals. In particular, the Embedded Atom
595 > Model ({\sc eam})~\cite{PhysRevB.33.7983} and Sutton-Chen ({\sc
596 >  sc})~\cite{Chen90} potential have been used to study a wide range of
597 > phenomena in both bulk materials and
598 > nanoparticles.\cite{ISI:000207079300006,Clancy:1992,Vardeman:2008fk,Vardeman-II:2001jn,ShibataT._ja026764r,Sankaranarayanan:2005lr,Chui:2003fk,Wang:2005qy,Medasani:2007uq}
599 > Both potentials are based on a model of a metal which treats the
600 > nuclei and core electrons as pseudo-atoms embedded in the electron
601 > density due to the valence electrons on all of the other atoms in the
602 > system. The {\sc sc} potential has a simple form that closely
603 > resembles the Lennard Jones potential,
604 > \begin{equation}
605 > \label{eq:SCP1}
606 > U_{tot}=\sum _{i}\left[ \frac{1}{2}\sum _{j\neq i}D_{ij}V^{pair}_{ij}(r_{ij})-c_{i}D_{ii}\sqrt{\rho_{i}}\right] ,
607 > \end{equation}
608 > where $V^{pair}_{ij}$ and $\rho_{i}$ are given by
609 > \begin{equation}
610 > \label{eq:SCP2}
611 > V^{pair}_{ij}(r)=\left( \frac{\alpha_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\right)^{n_{ij}}, \rho_{i}=\sum_{j\neq i}\left( \frac{\alpha_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\right) ^{m_{ij}}.
612 > \end{equation}
613 > $V^{pair}_{ij}$ is a repulsive pairwise potential that accounts for
614 > interactions between the pseudoatom cores. The $\sqrt{\rho_i}$ term in
615 > Eq. (\ref{eq:SCP1}) is an attractive many-body potential that models
616 > the interactions between the valence electrons and the cores of the
617 > pseudo-atoms. $D_{ij}$, $D_{ii}$ set the appropriate overall energy
618 > scale, $c_i$ scales the attractive portion of the potential relative
619 > to the repulsive interaction and $\alpha_{ij}$ is a length parameter
620 > that assures a dimensionless form for $\rho$. These parameters are
621 > tuned to various experimental properties such as the density, cohesive
622 > energy, and elastic moduli for FCC transition metals. The quantum
623 > Sutton-Chen ({\sc q-sc}) formulation matches these properties while
624 > including zero-point quantum corrections for different transition
625 > metals.\cite{PhysRevB.59.3527}  The {\sc eam} functional forms differ
626 > slightly from {\sc sc} but the overall method is very similar.
627 >
628 > In this work, we have utilized both the {\sc eam} and the {\sc q-sc}
629 > potentials to test the behavior of scaling RNEMD.
630 >
631 > A face-centered-cubic (FCC) lattice was prepared containing 2880 Au
632 > atoms.  [LxMxN UNIT CELLS].  Simulations were run both with and
633 > without isobaric-isothermal (NPT)~\cite{melchionna93}
634 > pre-equilibration at a target pressure of 1 atm. When equilibrated
635 > under NPT conditions, our simulation box expanded by approximately 1\%
636 > Following adjustment of the box volume, equilibrations in both the
637 > canonical and microcanonical ensembles were carried out.  With the
638 > simulation cell divided evenly into 10 slabs, different thermal
639 > gradients were established by applying a set of target thermal
640 > transfer fluxes.
641 >
642 > The results for the thermal conductivity of gold are shown in Table
643 > \ref{AuThermal}.  In these calculations, the end and middle slabs were
644 > excluded in thermal gradient linear regession.  {\sc eam} predicts
645 > slightly larger thermal conductivities than {\sc q-sc}.  However, both
646 > values are smaller than experimental value by a factor of more than
647 > 200. This behavior has been observed previously by Richardson and
648 > Clancy, and has been attributed to the lack of electronic effects in
649 > these force fields.\cite{Clancy:1992} The non-equilibrium MD method
650 > they employed in their simulations produced comparable results to
651 > ours.  It should be noted that the density of the metal being
652 > simulated also greatly affects the thermal conductivity.  (Table
653 > \ref{AuThermal}) [IN VOLUME OR LINEAR DIMENSIONS].  With an expanded
654 > lattice, lower thermal conductance is expected (and observed). We also
655 > observed a decrease in thermal conductance at higher temperatures, a
656 > trend that agrees with experimental measurements [PAGE
657 > NUMBERS?].\cite{AshcroftMermin}
658 >
659 > \begin{table*}
660 >  \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
661 >    \begin{center}
662 >      
663 >      \caption{Calculated thermal conductivity of crystalline gold
664 >        using two related force fields. Calculations were done at both
665 >        experimental and equilibrated densities and at a range of
666 >        temperatures and thermal flux rates.  Uncertainties are
667 >        indicated in parentheses. [CLANCY COMPARISON? SWAPPING
668 >        COMPARISON?]}
669 >      
670 >      \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|cc|}
671 >        \hline
672 >        Force Field & $\rho$ (g/cm$^3$) & ${\langle T\rangle}$ (K) &
673 >        $\langle dT/dz\rangle$ (K/\AA) & $\lambda (\mathrm{W m}^{-1} \mathrm{K}^{-1})$\\
674 >        \hline
675 >        \multirow{7}{*}{\sc q-sc} & \multirow{3}{*}{19.188} & \multirow{3}{*}{300} & 1.44 & 1.10(0.06)\\
676 >        &        &     & 2.86 & 1.08(0.05)\\
677 >        &        &     & 5.14 & 1.15(0.07)\\\cline{2-5}
678 >        & \multirow{4}{*}{19.263} & \multirow{2}{*}{300} & 2.31 & 1.25(0.06)\\
679 >        &        &     & 3.02 & 1.26(0.05)\\\cline{3-5}
680 >        &        & \multirow{2}{*}{575} & 3.02 & 1.02(0.07)\\
681 >        &        &     & 4.84 & 0.92(0.05)\\
682 >        \hline
683 >        \multirow{8}{*}{\sc eam} & \multirow{3}{*}{19.045} & \multirow{3}{*}{300} & 1.24 & 1.24(0.16)\\
684 >        &        &     & 2.06 & 1.37(0.04)\\
685 >        &        &     & 2.55 & 1.41(0.07)\\\cline{2-5}
686 >        & \multirow{5}{*}{19.263} & \multirow{3}{*}{300} & 1.06 & 1.45(0.13)\\
687 >        &        &     & 2.04 & 1.41(0.07)\\
688 >        &        &     & 2.41 & 1.53(0.10)\\\cline{3-5}
689 >        &        & \multirow{2}{*}{575} & 2.82 & 1.08(0.03)\\
690 >        &        &     & 4.14 & 1.08(0.05)\\
691 >        \hline
692 >      \end{tabular}
693 >      \label{AuThermal}
694 >    \end{center}
695 >  \end{minipage}
696 > \end{table*}
697 >
698 > \subsection{Thermal Conductance at the Au/H$_2$O interface}
699 > The most attractive aspect of the scaling approach for RNEMD is the
700 > ability to use the method in non-homogeneous systems, where molecules
701 > of different identities are segregated in different slabs.  To test
702 > this application, we simulated a Gold (111) / water interface.  To
703 > construct the interface, a box containing a lattice of 1188 Au atoms
704 > (with the 111 surface in the +z and -z directions) was allowed to
705 > relax under ambient temperature and pressure.  A separate (but
706 > identically sized) box of SPC/E water was also equilibrated at ambient
707 > conditions.  The two boxes were combined by removing all water
708 > molecules withing 3 \AA radius of any gold atom.  The final
709 > configuration contained 1862 SPC/E water molecules.
710 >
711 > After simulations of bulk water and crystal gold, a mixture system was
712 > constructed, consisting of 1188 Au atoms and 1862 H$_2$O
713 > molecules. Spohr potential was adopted in depicting the interaction
714 > between metal atom and water molecule.\cite{ISI:000167766600035} A
715 > similar protocol of equilibration was followed. Several thermal
716 > gradients was built under different target thermal flux. It was found
717 > out that compared to our previous simulation systems, the two phases
718 > could have large temperature difference even under a relatively low
719 > thermal flux.
720 >
721 >
722 > After simulations of homogeneous water and gold systems using
723 > NIVS-RNEMD method were proved valid, calculation of gold/water
724 > interfacial thermal conductivity was followed. It is found out that
725 > the low interfacial conductance is probably due to the hydrophobic
726 > surface in our system. Figure \ref{interface} (a) demonstrates mass
727 > density change along $z$-axis, which is perpendicular to the
728 > gold/water interface. It is observed that water density significantly
729 > decreases when approaching the surface. Under this low thermal
730 > conductance, both gold and water phase have sufficient time to
731 > eliminate temperature difference inside respectively (Figure
732 > \ref{interface} b). With indistinguishable temperature difference
733 > within respective phase, it is valid to assume that the temperature
734 > difference between gold and water on surface would be approximately
735 > the same as the difference between the gold and water phase. This
736 > assumption enables convenient calculation of $G$ using
737 > Eq. \ref{interfaceCalc} instead of measuring temperatures of thin
738 > layer of water and gold close enough to surface, which would have
739 > greater fluctuation and lower accuracy. Reported results (Table
740 > \ref{interfaceRes}) are of two orders of magnitude smaller than our
741 > calculations on homogeneous systems, and thus have larger relative
742 > errors than our calculation results on homogeneous systems.
743 >
744 > \begin{figure}
745 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interface}
746 > \caption{Simulation results for Gold/Water interfacial thermal
747 >  conductivity: (a) Significant water density decrease is observed on
748 >  crystalline gold surface, which indicates low surface contact and
749 >  leads to low thermal conductance. (b) Temperature profiles for a
750 >  series of simulations. Temperatures of different slabs in the same
751 >  phase show no significant differences.}
752 > \label{interface}
753 > \end{figure}
754 >
755 > \begin{table*}
756 > \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
757 > \begin{center}
758 >
759 > \caption{Calculation results for interfacial thermal conductivity
760 >  at ${\langle T\rangle \sim}$ 300K at various thermal exchange
761 >  rates. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
762 >
763 > \begin{tabular}{cccc}
764 > \hline
765 > $J_z$ (MW/m$^2$) & $T_{gold}$ (K) & $T_{water}$ (K) & $G$
766 > (MW/m$^2$/K)\\
767 > \hline
768 > 98.0 & 355.2 & 295.8 & 1.65(0.21) \\
769 > 78.8 & 343.8 & 298.0 & 1.72(0.32) \\
770 > 73.6 & 344.3 & 298.0 & 1.59(0.24) \\
771 > 49.2 & 330.1 & 300.4 & 1.65(0.35) \\
772 > \hline
773 > \end{tabular}
774 > \label{interfaceRes}
775 > \end{center}
776 > \end{minipage}
777 > \end{table*}
778 >
779   \subsection{Shear Viscosity}
780   Our calculations (Table \ref{shearRate}) shows that scale RNEMD method
781   produced comparable shear viscosity to swap RNEMD method. In Table
# Line 372 | Line 786 | are shown in Figure \ref{shearGrad}.
786   momentum flux would theoretically result in swap method. All the scale
787   method results were from simulations that had a scaling interval of 10
788   time steps. The average molecular momentum gradients of these samples
789 < are shown in Figure \ref{shearGrad}.
789 > are shown in Figure \ref{shear} (a) and (b).
790  
791   \begin{table*}
792   \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
# Line 383 | Line 797 | are shown in Figure \ref{shearGrad}.
797    methods at various momentum exchange rates. Results in reduced
798    unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
799  
800 < \begin{tabular}{ccc}
800 > \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
801 > Swapping method & & & NIVS-RNEMD & \\
802   \hline
803 < Series & $\eta^*_{swap}$ & $\eta^*_{scale}$\\
803 > Swap Interval (fs) & $\eta^*_{swap}$ & & Equilvalent $j_p^*(v_x)$ &
804 > $\eta^*_{scale}$\\
805   \hline
806 < 20-500 & 3.64(0.05) & 3.76(0.09)\\
807 < 20-1000 & 3.52(0.16) & 3.66(0.06)\\
808 < 20-2000 & 3.72(0.05) & 3.32(0.18)\\
809 < 20-2500 & 3.42(0.06) & 3.43(0.08)\\
806 > 500  & 3.64(0.05) & & 0.09  & 3.76(0.09)\\
807 > 1000 & 3.52(0.16) & & 0.046 & 3.66(0.06)\\
808 > 2000 & 3.72(0.05) & & 0.024 & 3.32(0.18)\\
809 > 2500 & 3.42(0.06) & & 0.019 & 3.43(0.08)\\
810   \hline
811   \end{tabular}
812   \label{shearRate}
# Line 399 | Line 815 | Series & $\eta^*_{swap}$ & $\eta^*_{scale}$\\
815   \end{table*}
816  
817   \begin{figure}
818 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearGrad}
819 < \caption{Average momentum gradients of shear viscosity simulations}
820 < \label{shearGrad}
818 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shear}
819 > \caption{Average momentum gradients in shear viscosity simulations,
820 >  using (a) ``swapping'' method and (b) NIVS-RNEMD method
821 >  respectively. (c) Temperature difference among x and y, z dimensions
822 >  observed when using NIVS-RNEMD with equivalent exchange interval of
823 >  500 fs.}
824 > \label{shear}
825   \end{figure}
826  
407 \begin{figure}
408 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearTempScale}
409 \caption{Temperature profile for scaling RNEMD simulation.}
410 \label{shearTempScale}
411 \end{figure}
827   However, observations of temperatures along three dimensions show that
828   inhomogeneity occurs in scaling RNEMD simulations, particularly in the
829 < two slabs which were scaled. Figure \ref{shearTempScale} indicate that with
829 > two slabs which were scaled. Figure \ref{shear} (c) indicate that with
830   relatively large imposed momentum flux, the temperature difference among $x$
831   and the other two dimensions was significant. This would result from the
832   algorithm of scaling method. From Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, after
# Line 431 | Line 846 | attractive than swapping RNEMD in shear viscosity calc
846   exchange momentum flux simulations makes scaling RNEMD method less
847   attractive than swapping RNEMD in shear viscosity calculation.
848  
849 < \subsection{Thermal Conductivity}
849 > \section{Conclusions}
850 > NIVS-RNEMD simulation method is developed and tested on various
851 > systems. Simulation results demonstrate its validity in thermal
852 > conductivity calculations, from Lennard-Jones fluid to multi-atom
853 > molecule like water and metal crystals. NIVS-RNEMD improves
854 > non-Boltzmann-Maxwell distributions, which exist in previous RNEMD
855 > methods. Furthermore, it develops a valid means for unphysical thermal
856 > transfer between different species of molecules, and thus extends its
857 > applicability to interfacial systems. Our calculation of gold/water
858 > interfacial thermal conductivity demonstrates this advantage over
859 > previous RNEMD methods. NIVS-RNEMD has also limited application on
860 > shear viscosity calculations, but could cause temperature difference
861 > among different dimensions under high momentum flux. Modification is
862 > necessary to extend the applicability of NIVS-RNEMD in shear viscosity
863 > calculations.
864  
436 Our thermal conductivity calculations also show that scaling method results
437 agree with swapping method. Table \ref{thermal} lists our simulation
438 results with similar manner we used in shear viscosity
439 calculation. All the data reported from scaling method were obtained
440 by simulations of 10-step exchange frequency, and the target exchange
441 kinetic energy were set to produce equivalent kinetic energy flux as
442 in swapping method. Figure \ref{thermalGrad} exhibits similar thermal
443 gradients of respective similar kinetic energy flux.
444
445 \begin{table*}
446 \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
447 \begin{center}
448
449 \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of Lennard-Jones
450  fluid at ${\langle T^* \rangle = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with
451  swap and scale methods at various kinetic energy exchange rates. Results
452  in reduced unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses.}
453
454 \begin{tabular}{ccc}
455 \hline
456 Series & $\lambda^*_{swap}$ & $\lambda^*_{scale}$\\
457 \hline
458 20-250  & 7.03(0.34) & 7.30(0.10)\\
459 20-500  & 7.03(0.14) & 6.95(0.09)\\
460 20-1000 & 6.91(0.42) & 7.19(0.07)\\
461 20-2000 & 7.52(0.15) & 7.19(0.28)\\
462 \hline
463 \end{tabular}
464 \label{thermal}
465 \end{center}
466 \end{minipage}
467 \end{table*}
468
469 \begin{figure}
470 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalGrad}
471 \caption{Temperature gradients of thermal conductivity simulations}
472 \label{thermalGrad}
473 \end{figure}
474
475 During these simulations, molecule velocities were recorded in 1000 of
476 all the snapshots. These velocity data were used to produce histograms
477 of velocity and speed distribution in different slabs. From these
478 histograms, it is observed that with increasing unphysical kinetic
479 energy flux, speed and velocity distribution of molecules in slabs
480 where swapping occured could deviate from Maxwell-Boltzmann
481 distribution. Figure \ref{histSwap} indicates how these distributions
482 deviate from ideal condition. In high temperature slabs, probability
483 density in low speed is confidently smaller than ideal distribution;
484 in low temperature slabs, probability density in high speed is smaller
485 than ideal. This phenomenon is observable even in our relatively low
486 swapping rate simulations. And this deviation could also leads to
487 deviation of distribution of velocity in various dimensions. One
488 feature of these deviated distribution is that in high temperature
489 slab, the ideal Gaussian peak was changed into a relatively flat
490 plateau; while in low temperature slab, that peak appears sharper.
491
492 \begin{figure}
493 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{histSwap}
494 \caption{Speed distribution for thermal conductivity using swapping RNEMD.}
495 \label{histSwap}
496 \end{figure}
497
498 \begin{figure}
499 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{histScale}
500 \caption{Speed distribution for thermal conductivity using scaling RNEMD.}
501 \label{histScale}
502 \end{figure}
503
504 \subsection{Interfaciel Thermal Conductivity}
505
506 \begin{figure}
507 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spceGrad}
508 \caption{Temperature gradients for SPC/E water thermal conductivity.}
509 \label{spceGrad}
510 \end{figure}
511
512 \begin{table*}
513 \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
514 \begin{center}
515
516 \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of SPC/E water
517  at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various thermal exchange rates. Errors of
518  calculations in parentheses. }
519
520 \begin{tabular}{cccc}
521 \hline
522 $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & & $\lambda$(W/m/K) & \\
523 & This work & Previous simulations$^a$ & Experiment$^b$\\
524 \hline
525 0.38 & 0.816(0.044) & 0.784 & 0.64\\
526 0.81 & 0.770(0.008) & 0.730\\
527 1.54 & 0.813(0.007) & \\
528 \hline
529 \end{tabular}
530 \label{spceThermal}
531 \end{center}
532 \end{minipage}
533 \end{table*}
534
535
536 \begin{figure}
537 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{AuGrad}
538 \caption{Temperature gradients for crystal gold thermal conductivity.}
539 \label{AuGrad}
540 \end{figure}
541
542 \begin{table*}
543 \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
544 \begin{center}
545
546 \caption{Calculation results for thermal conductivity of crystal gold
547  at ${\langle T\rangle}$ = 300K at various thermal exchange rates. Errors of
548  calculations in parentheses. }
549
550 \begin{tabular}{ccc}
551 \hline
552 $\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA) & $\lambda$(W/m/K)\\
553 & This work & Previous simulations$^a$ \\
554 \hline
555 1.44 & 1.10(0.01) & \\
556 2.86 & 1.08(0.02) & \\
557 5.14 & 1.15(0.01) & \\
558 \hline
559 \end{tabular}
560 \label{AuThermal}
561 \end{center}
562 \end{minipage}
563 \end{table*}
564
565
566 \begin{figure}
567 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interfaceDensity}
568 \caption{Density profile for interfacial thermal conductivity
569  simulation box.}
570 \label{interfaceDensity}
571 \end{figure}
572
573
865   \section{Acknowledgments}
866   Support for this project was provided by the National Science
867   Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational time was provided by
868   the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the University of Notre
869   Dame.  \newpage
870  
871 < \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
871 > \bibliographystyle{aip}
872   \bibliography{nivsRnemd}
873 +
874   \end{doublespace}
875   \end{document}
876  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines