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 3538 by skuang, Sat Oct 17 03:38:44 2009 UTC vs.
Revision 3630 by skuang, Thu Aug 12 14:48:03 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}
13 < \usepackage[ref]{overcite}
13 > %\usepackage[ref]{overcite}
14 > \usepackage[square, comma, sort&compress]{natbib}
15 > \usepackage{url}
16   \pagestyle{plain} \pagenumbering{arabic} \oddsidemargin 0.0cm
17   \evensidemargin 0.0cm \topmargin -21pt \headsep 10pt \textheight
18   9.0in \textwidth 6.5in \brokenpenalty=10000
# Line 19 | Line 22
22   \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{20 pt}
23   \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{30 pt}
24  
25 < \renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional referenc note
25 > %\renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional referenc note
26 > \bibpunct{[}{]}{,}{s}{}{;}
27 > \bibliographystyle{aip}
28  
29   \begin{document}
30  
# Line 38 | Line 43 | Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
43   \begin{doublespace}
44  
45   \begin{abstract}
46 <
46 >  We present a new method for introducing stable non-equilibrium
47 >  velocity and temperature gradients in molecular dynamics simulations
48 >  of heterogeneous systems.  This method extends earlier Reverse
49 >  Non-Equilibrium Molecular Dynamics (RNEMD) methods which use
50 >  momentum exchange swapping moves. The standard swapping moves can
51 >  create non-thermal velocity distributions and are difficult to use
52 >  for interfacial calculations.  By using non-isotropic velocity
53 >  scaling (NIVS) on the molecules in specific regions of a system, it
54 >  is possible to impose momentum or thermal flux between regions of a
55 >  simulation while conserving the linear momentum and total energy of
56 >  the system.  To test the methods, we have computed the thermal
57 >  conductivity of model liquid and solid systems as well as the
58 >  interfacial thermal conductivity of a metal-water interface.  We
59 >  find that the NIVS-RNEMD improves the problematic velocity
60 >  distributions that develop in other RNEMD methods.
61   \end{abstract}
62  
63   \newpage
# Line 49 | Line 68 | Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
68   %                          BODY OF TEXT
69   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
70  
52
53
71   \section{Introduction}
72   The original formulation of Reverse Non-equilibrium Molecular Dynamics
73   (RNEMD) obtains transport coefficients (thermal conductivity and shear
74   viscosity) in a fluid by imposing an artificial momentum flux between
75   two thin parallel slabs of material that are spatially separated in
76   the simulation cell.\cite{MullerPlathe:1997xw,ISI:000080382700030} The
77 < artificial flux is typically created by periodically ``swapping'' either
78 < the entire momentum vector $\vec{p}$ or single components of this
79 < vector ($p_x$) between molecules in each of the two slabs.  If the two
80 < slabs are separated along the z coordinate, the imposed flux is either
81 < directional ($j_z(p_x)$) or isotropic ($J_z$), and the response of a
82 < simulated system to the imposed momentum flux will typically be a
83 < velocity or thermal gradient.  The transport coefficients (shear
84 < viscosity and thermal conductivity) are easily obtained by assuming
85 < linear response of the system,
77 > artificial flux is typically created by periodically ``swapping''
78 > either the entire momentum vector $\vec{p}$ or single components of
79 > this vector ($p_x$) between molecules in each of the two slabs.  If
80 > the two slabs are separated along the $z$ coordinate, the imposed flux
81 > is either directional ($j_z(p_x)$) or isotropic ($J_z$), and the
82 > response of a simulated system to the imposed momentum flux will
83 > typically be a velocity or thermal gradient (Fig. \ref{thermalDemo}).
84 > The shear viscosity ($\eta$) and thermal conductivity ($\lambda$) are
85 > easily obtained by assuming linear response of the system,
86   \begin{eqnarray}
87   j_z(p_x) & = & -\eta \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial z}\\
88 < J & = & \lambda \frac{\partial T}{\partial z}
88 > J_z & = & \lambda \frac{\partial T}{\partial z}
89   \end{eqnarray}
90 < RNEMD has been widely used to provide computational estimates of thermal
91 < conductivities and shear viscosities in a wide range of materials,
92 < from liquid copper to monatomic liquids to molecular fluids
93 < (e.g. ionic liquids).\cite{ISI:000246190100032}
90 > RNEMD has been widely used to provide computational estimates of
91 > thermal conductivities and shear viscosities in a wide range of
92 > materials, from liquid copper to both monatomic and molecular fluids
93 > (e.g.  ionic
94 > 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}
95  
96 < RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD methods because
97 < it imposes what is typically difficult to measure (a flux or stress)
98 < and it is typically much easier to compute momentum gradients or
99 < strains (the response).  For similar reasons, RNEMD is also preferable
100 < to slowly-converging equilibrium methods for measuring thermal
101 < conductivity and shear viscosity (using Green-Kubo relations or the
102 < Helfand moment approach of Viscardy {\it et
96 > \begin{figure}
97 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalDemo}
98 > \caption{RNEMD methods impose an unphysical transfer of momentum or
99 >  kinetic energy between a ``hot'' slab and a ``cold'' slab in the
100 >  simulation box.  The molecular system responds to this imposed flux
101 >  by generating a momentum or temperature gradient.  The slope of the
102 >  gradient can then be used to compute transport properties (e.g.
103 >  shear viscosity and thermal conductivity).}
104 > \label{thermalDemo}
105 > \end{figure}
106 >
107 > RNEMD is preferable in many ways to the forward NEMD
108 > methods\cite{ISI:A1988Q205300014,hess:209,Vasquez:2004fk,backer:154503,ISI:000266247600008}
109 > because it imposes what is typically difficult to measure (a flux or
110 > stress) and it is typically much easier to compute the response
111 > (momentum gradients or strains).  For similar reasons, RNEMD is also
112 > preferable to slowly-converging equilibrium methods for measuring
113 > thermal conductivity and shear viscosity (using Green-Kubo
114 > relations\cite{daivis:541,mondello:9327} or the Helfand moment
115 > approach of Viscardy {\it et
116    al.}\cite{Viscardy:2007bh,Viscardy:2007lq}) because these rely on
117   computing difficult to measure quantities.
118  
# Line 91 | Line 122 | Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some probl
122   typically samples from the same manifold of states in the
123   microcanonical ensemble.
124  
125 < Recently, Tenney and Maginn have discovered some problems with the
126 < original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large momentum fluxes
127 < (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the slabs) can result
128 < in "notched", "peaked" and generally non-thermal momentum
129 < distributions in the two slabs, as well as non-linear thermal and
130 < velocity distributions along the direction of the imposed flux ($z$).
131 < Tenney and Maginn obtained reasonable limits on imposed flux and
132 < self-adjusting metrics for retaining the usability of the method.
125 > Recently, Tenney and Maginn\cite{Maginn:2010} have discovered some
126 > problems with the original RNEMD swap technique.  Notably, large
127 > momentum fluxes (equivalent to frequent momentum swaps between the
128 > slabs) can result in ``notched'', ``peaked'' and generally non-thermal
129 > momentum distributions in the two slabs, as well as non-linear thermal
130 > and velocity distributions along the direction of the imposed flux
131 > ($z$). Tenney and Maginn obtained reasonable limits on imposed flux
132 > and proposed self-adjusting metrics for retaining the usability of the
133 > method.
134  
135   In this paper, we develop and test a method for non-isotropic velocity
136 < scaling (NIVS-RNEMD) which retains the desirable features of RNEMD
136 > scaling (NIVS) which retains the desirable features of RNEMD
137   (conservation of linear momentum and total energy, compatibility with
138   periodic boundary conditions) while establishing true thermal
139 < distributions in each of the two slabs.  In the next section, we
140 < develop the method for determining the scaling constraints.  We then
141 < test the method on both single component, multi-component, and
142 < non-isotropic mixtures and show that it is capable of providing
139 > distributions in each of the two slabs. In the next section, we
140 > present the method for determining the scaling constraints.  We then
141 > test the method on both liquids and solids as well as a non-isotropic
142 > liquid-solid interface and show that it is capable of providing
143   reasonable estimates of the thermal conductivity and shear viscosity
144 < in these cases.
144 > in all of these cases.
145  
146   \section{Methodology}
147 < We retain the basic idea of Muller-Plathe's RNEMD method; the periodic
148 < system is partitioned into a series of thin slabs along a particular
147 > We retain the basic idea of M\"{u}ller-Plathe's RNEMD method; the
148 > periodic system is partitioned into a series of thin slabs along one
149   axis ($z$).  One of the slabs at the end of the periodic box is
150   designated the ``hot'' slab, while the slab in the center of the box
151   is designated the ``cold'' slab.  The artificial momentum flux will be
# Line 121 | Line 153 | moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold
153   hot slab.
154  
155   Rather than using momentum swaps, we use a series of velocity scaling
156 < moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$ located within the cold slab,
156 > moves.  For molecules $\{i\}$  located within the cold slab,
157   \begin{equation}
158 < \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
159 < x \\
160 < y \\
161 < z \\
158 > \vec{v}_i \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
159 > x & 0 & 0 \\
160 > 0 & y & 0 \\
161 > 0 & 0 & z \\
162   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_i
163   \end{equation}
164 < where ${x, y, z}$ are a set of 3 scaling variables for each of the
165 < three directions in the system.  Likewise, the molecules $\{j\}$
166 < located in the hot slab will see a concomitant scaling of velocities,
164 > where ${x, y, z}$ are a set of 3 velocity-scaling variables for each
165 > of the three directions in the system.  Likewise, the molecules
166 > $\{j\}$ located in the hot slab will see a concomitant scaling of
167 > velocities,
168   \begin{equation}
169 < \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{c}
170 < x^\prime \\
171 < y^\prime \\
172 < z^\prime \\
169 > \vec{v}_j \leftarrow \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
170 > x^\prime & 0 & 0 \\
171 > 0 & y^\prime & 0 \\
172 > 0 & 0 & z^\prime \\
173   \end{array} \right) \cdot \vec{v}_j
174   \end{equation}
175  
176   Conservation of linear momentum in each of the three directions
177 < ($\alpha = x,y,z$) ties the values of the hot and cold bin scaling
177 > ($\alpha = x,y,z$) ties the values of the hot and cold scaling
178   parameters together:
179   \begin{equation}
180   P_h^\alpha + P_c^\alpha = \alpha^\prime P_h^\alpha + \alpha P_c^\alpha
181   \end{equation}
182   where
183 < \begin{equation}
184 < \begin{array}{rcl}
185 < P_c^\alpha & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N_c} m_i \left[\vec{v}_i\right]_\alpha \\
153 < P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j \left[\vec{v}_j\right]_\alpha \\
154 < \end{array}
183 > \begin{eqnarray}
184 > P_c^\alpha & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N_c} m_i v_{i\alpha} \\
185 > P_h^\alpha & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N_h} m_j v_{j\alpha}
186   \label{eq:momentumdef}
187 < \end{equation}
187 > \end{eqnarray}
188   Therefore, for each of the three directions, the hot scaling
189   parameters are a simple function of the cold scaling parameters and
190 < the instantaneous linear momentum in each of the two slabs.
190 > the instantaneous linear momenta in each of the two slabs.
191   \begin{equation}
192   \alpha^\prime = 1 + (1 - \alpha) p_\alpha
193   \label{eq:hotcoldscaling}
# Line 169 | Line 200 | Conservation of total energy also places constraints o
200  
201   Conservation of total energy also places constraints on the scaling:
202   \begin{equation}
203 < \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} K_h^\alpha + K_c^\alpha = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
204 < \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha.
203 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} \left\{ K_h^\alpha + K_c^\alpha \right\} = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
204 > \left\{ \left(\alpha^\prime\right)^2 K_h^\alpha + \alpha^2 K_c^\alpha \right\}
205   \end{equation}
206 < where the kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and $K_c^\alpha$, are computed
207 < for each of the three directions in a similar manner to the linear momenta
208 < (Eq. \ref{eq:momentumdef}).  Substituting in the expressions for the
209 < hot scaling parameters ($\alpha^\prime$) from Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}),
210 < we obtain the {\it constraint ellipsoid equation}:
206 > where the translational kinetic energies, $K_h^\alpha$ and
207 > $K_c^\alpha$, are computed for each of the three directions in a
208 > similar manner to the linear momenta (Eq. \ref{eq:momentumdef}).
209 > Substituting in the expressions for the hot scaling parameters
210 > ($\alpha^\prime$) from Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}), we obtain the
211 > {\it constraint ellipsoid}:
212   \begin{equation}
213 < \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha + c_\alpha = 0,
213 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} \left( a_\alpha \alpha^2 + b_\alpha \alpha +
214 >  c_\alpha \right) = 0
215   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoid}
216   \end{equation}
217   where the constants are obtained from the instantaneous values of the
218   linear momenta and kinetic energies for the hot and cold slabs,
219 < \begin{equation}
187 < \begin{array}{rcl}
219 > \begin{eqnarray}
220   a_\alpha & = &\left(K_c^\alpha + K_h^\alpha
221    \left(p_\alpha\right)^2\right) \\
222   b_\alpha & = & -2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha \left( 1 + p_\alpha\right) \\
223 < c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha \\
192 < \end{array}
223 > c_\alpha & = & K_h^\alpha p_\alpha^2 + 2 K_h^\alpha p_\alpha - K_c^\alpha
224   \label{eq:constraintEllipsoidConsts}
225 < \end{equation}
226 < This ellipsoid equation defines the set of cold slab scaling
227 < parameters which can be applied while preserving both linear momentum
228 < in all three directions as well as kinetic energy.
225 > \end{eqnarray}
226 > This ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) defines the set of
227 > cold slab scaling parameters which, when applied, preserve the linear
228 > momentum of the system in all three directions as well as total
229 > kinetic energy.
230  
231 < The goal of using velocity scaling variables is to transfer linear
232 < momentum or kinetic energy from the cold slab to the hot slab.  If the
233 < hot and cold slabs are separated along the z-axis, the energy flux is
234 < given simply by the decrease in kinetic energy of the cold bin:
231 > The goal of using these velocity scaling variables is to transfer
232 > kinetic energy from the cold slab to the hot slab.  If the hot and
233 > cold slabs are separated along the z-axis, the energy flux is given
234 > simply by the decrease in kinetic energy of the cold bin:
235   \begin{equation}
236   (1-x^2) K_c^x  + (1-y^2) K_c^y + (1-z^2) K_c^z = J_z\Delta t
237   \end{equation}
238   The expression for the energy flux can be re-written as another
239   ellipsoid centered on $(x,y,z) = 0$:
240   \begin{equation}
241 < 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
241 > \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z} K_c^\alpha \alpha^2 = \sum_{\alpha = x,y,z}
242 > K_c^\alpha -J_z \Delta t
243   \label{eq:fluxEllipsoid}
244   \end{equation}
245 < The spatial extent of the {\it flux ellipsoid equation} is governed
246 < both by a targetted value, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values of the
247 < kinetic energy components in the cold bin.
245 > The spatial extent of the {\it thermal flux ellipsoid} is governed
246 > both by the target flux, $J_z$ as well as the instantaneous values of
247 > the kinetic energy components in the cold bin.
248  
249   To satisfy an energetic flux as well as the conservation constraints,
250 < it is sufficient to determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
251 < the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
252 < flux ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of
253 < the two ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
250 > we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ that lie on both the constraint
251 > ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the flux ellipsoid
252 > (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid}), i.e. the intersection of the two
253 > ellipsoids in 3-dimensional space.
254  
255 < One may also define momentum flux (say along the x-direction) as:
256 < \begin{equation}
257 < (1-x) P_c^x  = j_z(p_x)\Delta t
258 < \label{eq:fluxPlane}
259 < \end{equation}
260 < The above {\it flux equation} is essentially a plane which is
261 < perpendicular to the x-axis, with its position governed both by a
262 < targetted value, $j_z(p_x)$ as well as the instantaneous value of the
263 < momentum along the x-direction.
255 > \begin{figure}
256 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ellipsoids}
257 > \caption{Velocity scaling coefficients which maintain both constant
258 >  energy and constant linear momentum of the system lie on the surface
259 >  of the {\it constraint ellipsoid} while points which generate the
260 >  target momentum flux lie on the surface of the {\it flux ellipsoid}.
261 >  The velocity distributions in the cold bin are scaled by only those
262 >  points which lie on both ellipsoids.}
263 > \label{ellipsoids}
264 > \end{figure}
265  
266 < Similarly, to satisfy a momentum flux as well as the conservation
267 < constraints, it is sufficient to determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which
268 < lie on both the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid})
269 < and the flux plane (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}), i.e. the intersection of
270 < an ellipsoid and a plane in 3-dimensional space.
266 > Since ellipsoids can be expressed as polynomials up to second order in
267 > each of the three coordinates, finding the the intersection points of
268 > two ellipsoids is isomorphic to finding the roots a polynomial of
269 > degree 16.  There are a number of polynomial root-finding methods in
270 > the literature,\cite{Hoffman:2001sf,384119} but numerically finding
271 > the roots of high-degree polynomials is generally an ill-conditioned
272 > problem.\cite{Hoffman:2001sf} One simplification is to maintain
273 > velocity scalings that are {\it as isotropic as possible}.  To do
274 > this, we impose $x=y$, and treat both the constraint and flux
275 > ellipsoids as 2-dimensional ellipses.  In reduced dimensionality, the
276 > intersecting-ellipse problem reduces to finding the roots of
277 > polynomials of degree 4.
278  
279 < To summarize, by solving respective equation sets, one can determine
280 < possible sets of scaling variables for cold slab. And corresponding
281 < sets of scaling variables for hot slab can be determine as well.
279 > Depending on the target flux and current velocity distributions, the
280 > ellipsoids can have between 0 and 4 intersection points.  If there are
281 > no intersection points, it is not possible to satisfy the constraints
282 > while performing a non-equilibrium scaling move, and no change is made
283 > to the dynamics.  
284  
285 < The following problem will be choosing an optimal set of scaling
286 < variables among the possible sets. Although this method is inherently
287 < non-isotropic, the goal is still to maintain the system as isotropic
288 < as possible. Under this consideration, one would like the kinetic
289 < energies in different directions could become as close as each other
290 < after each scaling. Simultaneously, one would also like each scaling
291 < as gentle as possible, i.e. ${x,y,z \rightarrow 1}$, in order to avoid
292 < large perturbation to the system. Therefore, one approach to obtain the
293 < scaling variables would be constructing an criteria function, with
294 < constraints as above equation sets, and solving the function's minimum
295 < by method like Lagrange multipliers.
285 > With multiple intersection points, any of the scaling points will
286 > conserve the linear momentum and kinetic energy of the system and will
287 > generate the correct target flux.  Although this method is inherently
288 > non-isotropic, the goal is still to maintain the system as close to an
289 > isotropic fluid as possible.  With this in mind, we would like the
290 > kinetic energies in the three different directions could become as
291 > close as each other as possible after each scaling.  Simultaneously,
292 > one would also like each scaling as gentle as possible, i.e. ${x,y,z
293 >  \rightarrow 1}$, in order to avoid large perturbation to the system.
294 > To do this, we pick the intersection point which maintains the three
295 > scaling variables ${x, y, z}$ as well as the ratio of kinetic energies
296 > ${K_c^z/K_c^x, K_c^z/K_c^y}$ as close as possible to 1.
297  
298 < In order to save computation time, we have a different approach to a
299 < relatively good set of scaling variables with much less calculation
300 < than above. Here is the detail of our simplification of the problem.
298 > After the valid scaling parameters are arrived at by solving geometric
299 > intersection problems in $x, y, z$ space in order to obtain cold slab
300 > scaling parameters, Eq. (\ref{eq:hotcoldscaling}) is used to
301 > determine the conjugate hot slab scaling variables.
302  
303 < In the case of kinetic energy transfer, we impose another constraint
304 < ${x = y}$, into the equation sets. Consequently, there are two
305 < variables left. And now one only needs to solve a set of two {\it
306 <  ellipses equations}. This problem would be transformed into solving
307 < one quartic equation for one of the two variables. There are known
308 < generic methods that solve real roots of quartic equations. Then one
309 < can determine the other variable and obtain sets of scaling
310 < variables. Among these sets, one can apply the above criteria to
311 < choose the best set, while much faster with only a few sets to choose.
303 > \subsection{Introducing shear stress via velocity scaling}
304 > It is also possible to use this method to magnify the random
305 > fluctuations of the average momentum in each of the bins to induce a
306 > momentum flux.  Doing this repeatedly will create a shear stress on
307 > the system which will respond with an easily-measured strain.  The
308 > momentum flux (say along the $x$-direction) may be defined as:
309 > \begin{equation}
310 > (1-x) P_c^x = j_z(p_x)\Delta t
311 > \label{eq:fluxPlane}
312 > \end{equation}
313 > This {\it momentum flux plane} is perpendicular to the $x$-axis, with
314 > its position governed both by a target value, $j_z(p_x)$ as well as
315 > the instantaneous value of the momentum along the $x$-direction.
316  
317 < In the case of momentum flux transfer, we impose another constraint to
318 < set the kinetic energy transfer as zero. In another word, we apply
319 < Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid} and let ${J_z = 0}$. After that, with one
320 < variable fixed by Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, one now have a similar set
321 < of equations on the above kinetic energy transfer problem. Therefore,
273 < an approach similar to the above would be sufficient for this as well.
317 > In order to satisfy a momentum flux as well as the conservation
318 > constraints, we must determine the points ${x,y,z}$ which lie on both
319 > the constraint ellipsoid (Eq. \ref{eq:constraintEllipsoid}) and the
320 > flux plane (Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}), i.e. the intersection of an
321 > ellipsoid and a plane in 3-dimensional space.
322  
323 + In the case of momentum flux transfer, we also impose another
324 + constraint to set the kinetic energy transfer as zero. In other
325 + words, we apply Eq. \ref{eq:fluxEllipsoid} and let ${J_z = 0}$.  With
326 + one variable fixed by Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, one now have a similar
327 + set of quartic equations to the above kinetic energy transfer problem.
328 +
329   \section{Computational Details}
276 Our simulation consists of a series of systems. All of these
277 simulations were run with the OOPSE simulation software
278 package\cite{Meineke:2005gd} integrated with RNEMD methods.
330  
331 < A Lennard-Jones fluid system was built and tested first. In order to
332 < compare our method with swapping RNEMD, a series of simulations were
333 < performed to calculate the shear viscosity and thermal conductivity of
334 < argon. 2592 atoms were in a orthorhombic cell, which was ${10.06\sigma
335 <  \times 10.06\sigma \times 30.18\sigma}$ by size. The reduced density
336 < ${\rho^* = \rho\sigma^3}$ was thus 0.85, which enabled direct
337 < comparison between our results and others. These simulations used
338 < Verlet time-stepping algorithm with reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
339 <  4.6\times10^{-4}}$.
331 > We have implemented this methodology in our molecular dynamics code,
332 > OpenMD,\cite{Meineke:2005gd,openmd} performing the NIVS scaling moves
333 > with a variable frequency after the molecular dynamics (MD) steps.  We
334 > have tested the method in a variety of different systems, including:
335 > homogeneous fluids (Lennard-Jones and SPC/E water), crystalline
336 > solids, using both the embedded atom method
337 > (EAM)~\cite{PhysRevB.33.7983} and quantum Sutton-Chen
338 > (QSC)~\cite{PhysRevB.59.3527} models for Gold, and heterogeneous
339 > interfaces (QSC gold - SPC/E water). The last of these systems would
340 > have been difficult to study using previous RNEMD methods, but the
341 > current method can easily provide estimates of the interfacial thermal
342 > conductivity ($G$).
343  
344 < For shear viscosity calculation, the reduced temperature was ${T^* =
291 <  k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$. Simulations were run in microcanonical
292 < ensemble (NVE). For the swapping part, Muller-Plathe's algorithm was
293 < adopted.\cite{ISI:000080382700030} The simulation box was under
294 < periodic boundary condition, and devided into ${N = 20}$ slabs. In each swap,
295 < the top slab ${(n = 1)}$ exchange the most negative $x$ momentum with the
296 < most positive $x$ momentum in the center slab ${(n = N/2 + 1)}$. Referred
297 < to Tenney {\it et al.}\cite{tenneyANDmaginn}, a series of swapping
298 < frequency were chosen. According to each result from swapping
299 < RNEMD, scaling RNEMD simulations were run with the target momentum
300 < flux set to produce a similar momentum flux and shear
301 < rate. Furthermore, various scaling frequencies can be tested for one
302 < single swapping rate. To compare the performance between swapping and
303 < scaling method, temperatures of different dimensions in all the slabs
304 < were observed. Most of the simulations include $10^5$ steps of
305 < equilibration without imposing momentum flux, $10^5$ steps of
306 < stablization with imposing momentum transfer, and $10^6$ steps of data
307 < collection under RNEMD. For relatively high momentum flux simulations,
308 < ${5\times10^5}$ step data collection is sufficient. For some low momentum
309 < flux simulations, ${2\times10^6}$ steps were necessary.
344 > \subsection{Simulation Cells}
345  
346 < After each simulation, the shear viscosity was calculated in reduced
347 < unit. The momentum flux was calculated with total unphysical
348 < transferred momentum ${P_x}$ and simulation time $t$:
346 > In each of the systems studied, the dynamics was carried out in a
347 > rectangular simulation cell using periodic boundary conditions in all
348 > three dimensions.  The cells were longer along the $z$ axis and the
349 > space was divided into $N$ slabs along this axis (typically $N=20$).
350 > The top slab ($n=1$) was designated the ``hot'' slab, while the
351 > central slab ($n= N/2 + 1$) was designated the ``cold'' slab. In all
352 > cases, simulations were first thermalized in canonical ensemble (NVT)
353 > using a Nos\'{e}-Hoover thermostat.\cite{Hoover85} then equilibrated in
354 > microcanonical ensemble (NVE) before introducing any non-equilibrium
355 > method.
356 >
357 > \subsection{RNEMD with M\"{u}ller-Plathe swaps}
358 >
359 > In order to compare our new methodology with the original
360 > M\"{u}ller-Plathe swapping algorithm,\cite{ISI:000080382700030} we
361 > first performed simulations using the original technique. At fixed
362 > intervals, kinetic energy or momentum exchange moves were performed
363 > between the hot and the cold slabs.  The interval between exchange
364 > moves governs the effective momentum flux ($j_z(p_x)$) or energy flux
365 > ($J_z$) between the two slabs so to vary this quantity, we performed
366 > simulations with a variety of delay intervals between the swapping moves.
367 >
368 > For thermal conductivity measurements, the particle with smallest
369 > speed in the hot slab and the one with largest speed in the cold slab
370 > had their entire momentum vectors swapped.  In the test cases run
371 > here, all particles had the same chemical identity and mass, so this
372 > move preserves both total linear momentum and total energy.  It is
373 > also possible to exchange energy by assuming an elastic collision
374 > between the two particles which are exchanging energy.
375 >
376 > For shear stress simulations, the particle with the most negative
377 > $p_x$ in the hot slab and the one with the most positive $p_x$ in the
378 > cold slab exchanged only this component of their momentum vectors.
379 >
380 > \subsection{RNEMD with NIVS scaling}
381 >
382 > For each simulation utilizing the swapping method, a corresponding
383 > NIVS-RNEMD simulation was carried out using a target momentum flux set
384 > to produce the same flux experienced in the swapping simulation.
385 >
386 > To test the temperature homogeneity, directional momentum and
387 > temperature distributions were accumulated for molecules in each of
388 > the slabs.  Transport coefficients were computed using the temperature
389 > (and momentum) gradients across the $z$-axis as well as the total
390 > momentum flux the system experienced during data collection portion of
391 > the simulation.
392 >
393 > \subsection{Shear viscosities}
394 >
395 > The momentum flux was calculated using the total non-physical momentum
396 > transferred (${P_x}$) and the data collection time ($t$):
397   \begin{equation}
398   j_z(p_x) = \frac{P_x}{2 t L_x L_y}
399   \end{equation}
400 < And the velocity gradient ${\langle \partial v_x /\partial z \rangle}$
401 < can be obtained by a linear regression of the velocity profile. From
402 < the shear viscosity $\eta$ calculated with the above parameters, one
403 < can further convert it into reduced unit ${\eta^* = \eta \sigma^2
404 <  (\varepsilon  m)^{-1/2}}$.
400 > where $L_x$ and $L_y$ denote the $x$ and $y$ lengths of the simulation
401 > box.  The factor of two in the denominator is present because physical
402 > momentum transfer between the slabs occurs in two directions ($+z$ and
403 > $-z$).  The velocity gradient ${\langle \partial v_x /\partial z
404 >  \rangle}$ was obtained using linear regression of the mean $x$
405 > component of the velocity, $\langle v_x \rangle$, in each of the bins.
406 > For Lennard-Jones simulations, shear viscosities are reported in
407 > reduced units (${\eta^* = \eta \sigma^2 (\varepsilon m)^{-1/2}}$).
408  
409 < For thermal conductivity calculation, simulations were first run under
324 < reduced temperature ${T^* = 0.72}$ in NVE ensemble. Muller-Plathe's
325 < algorithm was adopted in the swapping method. Under identical
326 < simulation box parameters, in each swap, the top slab exchange the
327 < molecule with least kinetic energy with the molecule in the center
328 < slab with most kinetic energy, unless this ``coldest'' molecule in the
329 < ``hot'' slab is still ``hotter'' than the ``hottest'' molecule in the ``cold''
330 < slab. According to swapping RNEMD results, target energy flux for
331 < scaling RNEMD simulations can be set. Also, various scaling
332 < frequencies can be tested for one target energy flux. To compare the
333 < performance between swapping and scaling method, distributions of
334 < velocity and speed in different slabs were observed.
409 > \subsection{Thermal Conductivities}
410  
411 < For each swapping rate, thermal conductivity was calculated in reduced
412 < unit. The energy flux was calculated similarly to the momentum flux,
413 < with total unphysical transferred energy ${E_{total}}$ and simulation
339 < time $t$:
411 > The energy flux was calculated in a similar manner to the momentum
412 > flux, using the total non-physical energy transferred (${E_{total}}$)
413 > and the data collection time $t$:
414   \begin{equation}
415   J_z = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y}
416   \end{equation}
417 < And the temperature gradient ${\langle\partial T/\partial z\rangle}$
418 < can be obtained by a linear regression of the temperature
419 < profile. From the thermal conductivity $\lambda$ calculated, one can
420 < further convert it into reduced unit ${\lambda^*=\lambda \sigma^2
421 <  m^{1/2} k_B^{-1}\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$.
417 > The temperature gradient ${\langle\partial T/\partial z\rangle}$ was
418 > obtained by a linear regression of the temperature profile. For
419 > Lennard-Jones simulations, thermal conductivities are reported in
420 > reduced units (${\lambda^*=\lambda \sigma^2 m^{1/2}
421 >  k_B^{-1}\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$).
422  
423 < \section{Results And Discussion}
350 < \subsection{Shear Viscosity}
351 < Our calculations (Table \ref{shearRate}) shows that scale RNEMD method
352 < produced comparable shear viscosity to swap RNEMD method. In Table
353 < \ref{shearRate}, the names of the calculated samples are devided into
354 < two parts. The first number refers to total slabs in one simulation
355 < box. The second number refers to the swapping interval in swap method, or
356 < in scale method the equilvalent swapping interval that the same
357 < momentum flux would theoretically result in swap method. All the scale
358 < method results were from simulations that had 10 time steps of scaling
359 < interval. The average molecular momentum gradients of these samples
360 < are shown in Figures \ref{shearGradSwap} and \ref{shearGradScale}
361 < respectively.
423 > \subsection{Interfacial Thermal Conductivities}
424  
425 < \begin{table*}
426 < \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
427 < \begin{center}
425 > For interfaces with a relatively low interfacial conductance, the bulk
426 > regions on either side of an interface rapidly come to a state in
427 > which the two phases have relatively homogeneous (but distinct)
428 > temperatures.  The interfacial thermal conductivity $G$ can therefore
429 > be approximated as:
430  
431 < \caption{Calculation results for shear viscosity of Lennard-Jones
432 <  fluid at ${T^* = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$, with swap and scale
433 <  methods at various momentum exchange rates. Results in reduced
434 <  unit. Errors of calculations in parentheses. }
431 > \begin{equation}
432 > G = \frac{E_{total}}{2 t L_x L_y \left( \langle T_{gold}\rangle -
433 >    \langle T_{water}\rangle \right)}
434 > \label{interfaceCalc}
435 > \end{equation}
436 > where ${E_{total}}$ is the imposed non-physical kinetic energy
437 > transfer and ${\langle T_{gold}\rangle}$ and ${\langle
438 >  T_{water}\rangle}$ are the average observed temperature of gold and
439 > water phases respectively.  If the interfacial conductance is {\it
440 >  not} small, it is also be possible to compute the interfacial
441 > thermal conductivity using this method utilizing the change in the
442 > slope of the thermal gradient ($\partial^2 \langle T \rangle / \partial
443 > z^2$) at the interface.
444  
445 < \begin{tabular}
446 < \hline
447 < Name & $\eta^*_{swap}$ & $\eta^*_{scale}$\\
448 < \hline
449 < 20-500 & 3.64(0.05) & 3.76(0.09)\\
450 < 20-1000 & 3.52(0.16) & -\\
451 < 20-2000 & - & 3.32(0.18)\\
452 < 20-2500 & - & 3.43(0.08)\\
453 < \end{tabular}
454 < \label{shearRate}
455 < \end{center}
456 < \end{minipage}
445 > \section{Results}
446 >
447 > \subsection{Lennard-Jones Fluid}
448 > 2592 Lennard-Jones atoms were placed in an orthorhombic cell
449 > ${10.06\sigma \times 10.06\sigma \times 30.18\sigma}$ on a side.  The
450 > reduced density ${\rho^* = \rho\sigma^3}$ was thus 0.85, which enabled
451 > direct comparison between our results and previous methods.  These
452 > simulations were carried out with a reduced timestep ${\tau^* =
453 >  4.6\times10^{-4}}$.  For the shear viscosity calculations, the mean
454 > temperature was ${T^* = k_B T/\varepsilon = 0.72}$.  For thermal
455 > conductivity calculations, simulations were run under reduced
456 > temperature ${\langle T^*\rangle = 0.72}$ in the microcanonical
457 > ensemble. The simulations included $10^5$ steps of equilibration
458 > without any momentum flux, $10^5$ steps of stablization with an
459 > imposed momentum transfer to create a gradient, and $10^6$ steps of
460 > data collection under RNEMD.
461 >
462 > \subsubsection*{Thermal Conductivity}
463 >
464 > Our thermal conductivity calculations show that the NIVS method agrees
465 > well with the swapping method. Five different swap intervals were
466 > tested (Table \ref{LJ}). Similar thermal gradients were observed with
467 > similar thermal flux under the two different methods (Figure
468 > \ref{thermalGrad}). Furthermore, the 1-d temperature profiles showed
469 > no observable differences between the $x$, $y$ and $z$ axes (Figure
470 > \ref{thermalGrad} c), so even though we are using a non-isotropic
471 > scaling method, none of the three directions are experience
472 > disproportionate heating due to the velocity scaling.
473 >
474 > \begin{table*}
475 >  \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
476 >    \begin{center}
477 >
478 >      \caption{Thermal conductivity ($\lambda^*$) and shear viscosity
479 >        ($\eta^*$) (in reduced units) of a Lennard-Jones fluid at
480 >        ${\langle T^* \rangle = 0.72}$ and ${\rho^* = 0.85}$ computed
481 >        at various momentum fluxes.  The original swapping method and
482 >        the velocity scaling method give similar results.
483 >        Uncertainties are indicated in parentheses.}
484 >      
485 >      \begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|cc|}
486 >        \hline
487 >        \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Momentum Exchange} &
488 >        \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Swapping RNEMD} &
489 >        \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{NIVS-RNEMD} \\
490 >        \hline
491 >        \multirow{2}{*}{Swap Interval (fs)} & Equivalent $J_z^*$ or &
492 >        \multirow{2}{*}{$\lambda^*_{swap}$} &
493 >        \multirow{2}{*}{$\eta^*_{swap}$}  &
494 >        \multirow{2}{*}{$\lambda^*_{scale}$} &
495 >        \multirow{2}{*}{$\eta^*_{scale}$} \\
496 >        & $j_z^*(p_x)$ (reduced units) & & & & \\
497 >        \hline
498 >        250  & 0.16  & 7.03(0.34) & 3.57(0.06) & 7.30(0.10) & 3.54(0.04)\\
499 >        500  & 0.09  & 7.03(0.14) & 3.64(0.05) & 6.95(0.09) & 3.76(0.09)\\
500 >        1000 & 0.047 & 6.91(0.42) & 3.52(0.16) & 7.19(0.07) & 3.66(0.06)\\
501 >        2000 & 0.024 & 7.52(0.15) & 3.72(0.05) & 7.19(0.28) & 3.32(0.18)\\
502 >        2500 & 0.019 & 7.41(0.29) & 3.42(0.06) & 7.98(0.33) & 3.43(0.08)\\
503 >        \hline
504 >      \end{tabular}
505 >      \label{LJ}
506 >    \end{center}
507 >  \end{minipage}
508   \end{table*}
509  
510   \begin{figure}
511 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearGradSwap.eps}
512 < \caption{Average momentum gradients of simulations using swap method.}
513 < \label{shearGradSwap}
511 >  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalGrad}
512 >  \caption{The NIVS-RNEMD method creates similar temperature gradients
513 >    compared with the swapping method under a variety of imposed
514 >    kinetic energy flux values. Furthermore, the implementation of
515 >    Non-Isotropic Velocity Scaling does not cause temperature
516 >    anisotropy to develop in thermal conductivity calculations.}
517 >  \label{thermalGrad}
518   \end{figure}
519  
520 + \subsubsection*{Velocity Distributions}
521 +
522 + During these simulations, velocities were recorded every 1000 steps
523 + and were used to produce distributions of both velocity and speed in
524 + each of the slabs. From these distributions, we observed that under
525 + relatively high non-physical kinetic energy flux, the speed of
526 + molecules in slabs where swapping occured could deviate from the
527 + Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This behavior was also noted by Tenney
528 + and Maginn.\cite{Maginn:2010} Figure \ref{thermalHist} shows how these
529 + distributions deviate from an ideal distribution. In the ``hot'' slab,
530 + the probability density is notched at low speeds and has a substantial
531 + shoulder at higher speeds relative to the ideal MB distribution. In
532 + the cold slab, the opposite notching and shouldering occurs.  This
533 + phenomenon is more obvious at higher swapping rates.
534 +
535 + The peak of the velocity distribution is substantially flattened in
536 + the hot slab, and is overly sharp (with truncated wings) in the cold
537 + slab. This problem is rooted in the mechanism of the swapping method.
538 + Continually depleting low (high) speed particles in the high (low)
539 + temperature slab is not complemented by diffusions of low (high) speed
540 + particles from neighboring slabs, unless the swapping rate is
541 + sufficiently small. Simutaneously, surplus low speed particles in the
542 + low temperature slab do not have sufficient time to diffuse to
543 + neighboring slabs.  Since the thermal exchange rate must reach a
544 + minimum level to produce an observable thermal gradient, the
545 + swapping-method RNEMD has a relatively narrow choice of exchange times
546 + that can be utilized.
547 +
548 + For comparison, NIVS-RNEMD produces a speed distribution closer to the
549 + Maxwell-Boltzmann curve (Figure \ref{thermalHist}).  The reason for
550 + this is simple; upon velocity scaling, a Gaussian distribution remains
551 + Gaussian.  Although a single scaling move is non-isotropic in three
552 + dimensions, our criteria for choosing a set of scaling coefficients
553 + helps maintain the distributions as close to isotropic as possible.
554 + Consequently, NIVS-RNEMD is able to impose an unphysical thermal flux
555 + as the previous RNEMD methods but without large perturbations to the
556 + velocity distributions in the two slabs.
557 +
558   \begin{figure}
559 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearGradScale.eps}
560 < \caption{Average momentum gradients of simulations using scale
561 <  method.}
562 < \label{shearGradScale}
559 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{thermalHist}
560 > \caption{Velocity and speed distributions that develop under the
561 >  swapping and NIVS-RNEMD methods at high flux.  The distributions for
562 >  the hot bins (upper panels) and cold bins (lower panels) were
563 >  obtained from Lennard-Jones simulations with $\langle T^* \rangle =
564 >  4.5$ with a flux of $J_z^* \sim 5$ (equivalent to a swapping interval
565 >  of 10 time steps).  This is a relatively large flux which shows the
566 >  non-thermal distributions that develop under the swapping method.
567 >  NIVS does a better job of producing near-thermal distributions in
568 >  the bins.}
569 > \label{thermalHist}
570   \end{figure}
571  
572 +
573 + \subsubsection*{Shear Viscosity}
574 + Our calculations (Table \ref{LJ}) show that velocity-scaling RNEMD
575 + predicted comparable shear viscosities to swap RNEMD method. The
576 + average molecular momentum gradients of these samples are shown in
577 + Figure \ref{shear} (a) and (b).
578 +
579   \begin{figure}
580 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shearTempScale.eps}
581 < \caption{Temperature profile for scaling RNEMD simulation.}
582 < \label{shearTempScale}
580 >  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shear}
581 >  \caption{Average momentum gradients in shear viscosity simulations,
582 >    using ``swapping'' method (top panel) and NIVS-RNEMD method
583 >    (middle panel). NIVS-RNEMD produces a thermal anisotropy artifact
584 >    in the hot and cold bins when used for shear viscosity.  This
585 >    artifact does not appear in thermal conductivity calculations.}
586 >  \label{shear}
587   \end{figure}
404 However, observations of temperatures along three dimensions show that
405 inhomogeneity occurs in scaling RNEMD simulations, particularly in the
406 two slabs which were scaled. Figure \ref{shearTempScale} indicate that with
407 increased imposed momentum flux, the temperature difference among $x$
408 and the other two dimensions were larger. This would result from the
409 scaling method. From Eq. \ref{eq:fluxPlane}, after momentum gradient
410 is set up, $P_c^x$ would be roughly stable ($<0$). Consequently, scaling
411 factor $x$ would most probably larger than 1. Therefore, the kinetic
412 energy in $x$-dimension $K_c^x$ would keep increase after most scaling
413 step. And if there is not enough time for the kinetic energy to
414 exchange among different dimensions and different slabs, the system would finally build up temperature (kinetic energy) difference among the three dimensions.
415 Also, between $y$ and $z$ dimensions in the scaled slabs, temperatures of
416 $z$-axis are closer to neighbor slabs. This is due to momentum
417 transfer along $z$ dimension between slabs.
588  
589 + Observations of the three one-dimensional temperatures in each of the
590 + slabs shows that NIVS-RNEMD does produce some thermal anisotropy,
591 + particularly in the hot and cold slabs.  Figure \ref{shear} (c)
592 + indicates that with a relatively large imposed momentum flux,
593 + $j_z(p_x)$, the $x$ direction approaches a different temperature from
594 + the $y$ and $z$ directions in both the hot and cold bins.  This is an
595 + artifact of the scaling constraints.  After the momentum gradient has
596 + been established, $P_c^x < 0$.  Consequently, the scaling factor $x$
597 + is nearly always greater than one in order to satisfy the constraints.
598 + This will continually increase the kinetic energy in $x$-dimension,
599 + $K_c^x$.  If there is not enough time for the kinetic energy to
600 + exchange among different directions and different slabs, the system
601 + will exhibit the observed thermal anisotropy in the hot and cold bins.
602 +
603   Although results between scaling and swapping methods are comparable,
604 < the inherent temperature inhomogeneity makes scaling RNEMD method less
605 < attractive than swapping RNEMD in shear viscosity calculation.
604 > the inherent temperature anisotropy does make NIVS-RNEMD method less
605 > attractive than swapping RNEMD for shear viscosity calculations.  We
606 > note that this problem appears only when momentum flux is applied, and
607 > does not appear in thermal flux calculations.
608  
609 < \subsection{Thermal Conductivity}
609 > \subsection{Bulk SPC/E water}
610  
611 + We compared the thermal conductivity of SPC/E water using NIVS-RNEMD
612 + to the work of Bedrov {\it et al.}\cite{Bedrov:2000}, which employed
613 + the original swapping RNEMD method.  Bedrov {\it et
614 +  al.}\cite{Bedrov:2000} argued that exchange of the molecule
615 + center-of-mass velocities instead of single atom velocities in a
616 + molecule conserves the total kinetic energy and linear momentum.  This
617 + principle is also adopted Fin our simulations. Scaling was applied to
618 + the center-of-mass velocities of the rigid bodies of SPC/E model water
619 + molecules.
620  
621 + To construct the simulations, a simulation box consisting of 1000
622 + molecules were first equilibrated under ambient pressure and
623 + temperature conditions using the isobaric-isothermal (NPT)
624 + ensemble.\cite{melchionna93} A fixed volume was chosen to match the
625 + average volume observed in the NPT simulations, and this was followed
626 + by equilibration, first in the canonical (NVT) ensemble, followed by a
627 + 100~ps period under constant-NVE conditions without any momentum flux.
628 + Another 100~ps was allowed to stabilize the system with an imposed
629 + momentum transfer to create a gradient, and 1~ns was allotted for data
630 + collection under RNEMD.
631  
632 < \section{Acknowledgments}
633 < Support for this project was provided by the National Science
634 < Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational time was provided by
635 < the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the University of Notre
636 < Dame.  \newpage
632 > In our simulations, the established temperature gradients were similar
633 > to the previous work.  Our simulation results at 318K are in good
634 > agreement with those from Bedrov {\it et al.} (Table
635 > \ref{spceThermal}). And both methods yield values in reasonable
636 > agreement with experimental values.  
637  
638 < \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
638 > \begin{table*}
639 >  \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
640 >    \begin{center}
641 >      
642 >      \caption{Thermal conductivity of SPC/E water under various
643 >        imposed thermal gradients. Uncertainties are indicated in
644 >        parentheses.}
645 >      
646 >      \begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccc|}
647 >        \hline
648 >        \multirow{2}{*}{$\langle T\rangle$(K)} &
649 >        \multirow{2}{*}{$\langle dT/dz\rangle$(K/\AA)} &
650 >        \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\lambda (\mathrm{W m}^{-1}
651 >          \mathrm{K}^{-1})$} \\
652 >        & & This work & Previous simulations\cite{Bedrov:2000} &
653 >        Experiment\cite{WagnerKruse}\\
654 >        \hline
655 >        \multirow{3}{*}{300} & 0.38 & 0.816(0.044) & &
656 >        \multirow{3}{*}{0.61}\\
657 >        & 0.81 & 0.770(0.008) & & \\
658 >        & 1.54 & 0.813(0.007) & & \\
659 >        \hline
660 >        \multirow{2}{*}{318} & 0.75 & 0.750(0.032) & 0.784 &
661 >        \multirow{2}{*}{0.64}\\
662 >        & 1.59 & 0.778(0.019) & 0.730 & \\
663 >        \hline
664 >      \end{tabular}
665 >      \label{spceThermal}
666 >    \end{center}
667 >  \end{minipage}
668 > \end{table*}
669 >
670 > \subsection{Crystalline Gold}
671 >
672 > To see how the method performed in a solid, we calculated thermal
673 > conductivities using two atomistic models for gold.  Several different
674 > potential models have been developed that reasonably describe
675 > interactions in transition metals. In particular, the Embedded Atom
676 > Model (EAM)~\cite{PhysRevB.33.7983} and Sutton-Chen (SC)~\cite{Chen90}
677 > potential have been used to study a wide range of phenomena in both
678 > bulk materials and
679 > nanoparticles.\cite{ISI:000207079300006,Clancy:1992,Vardeman:2008fk,Vardeman-II:2001jn,ShibataT._ja026764r,Sankaranarayanan:2005lr,Chui:2003fk,Wang:2005qy,Medasani:2007uq}
680 > Both potentials are based on a model of a metal which treats the
681 > nuclei and core electrons as pseudo-atoms embedded in the electron
682 > density due to the valence electrons on all of the other atoms in the
683 > system. The SC potential has a simple form that closely resembles the
684 > Lennard Jones potential,
685 > \begin{equation}
686 > \label{eq:SCP1}
687 > 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] ,
688 > \end{equation}
689 > where $V^{pair}_{ij}$ and $\rho_{i}$ are given by
690 > \begin{equation}
691 > \label{eq:SCP2}
692 > 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}}.
693 > \end{equation}
694 > $V^{pair}_{ij}$ is a repulsive pairwise potential that accounts for
695 > interactions between the pseudoatom cores. The $\sqrt{\rho_i}$ term in
696 > Eq. (\ref{eq:SCP1}) is an attractive many-body potential that models
697 > the interactions between the valence electrons and the cores of the
698 > pseudo-atoms. $D_{ij}$, $D_{ii}$ set the appropriate overall energy
699 > scale, $c_i$ scales the attractive portion of the potential relative
700 > to the repulsive interaction and $\alpha_{ij}$ is a length parameter
701 > that assures a dimensionless form for $\rho$. These parameters are
702 > tuned to various experimental properties such as the density, cohesive
703 > energy, and elastic moduli for FCC transition metals. The quantum
704 > Sutton-Chen (QSC) formulation matches these properties while including
705 > zero-point quantum corrections for different transition
706 > metals.\cite{PhysRevB.59.3527} The EAM functional forms differ
707 > slightly from SC but the overall method is very similar.
708 >
709 > In this work, we have utilized both the EAM and the QSC potentials to
710 > test the behavior of scaling RNEMD.
711 >
712 > A face-centered-cubic (FCC) lattice was prepared containing 2880 Au
713 > atoms (i.e. ${6\times 6\times 20}$ unit cells). Simulations were run
714 > both with and without isobaric-isothermal (NPT)~\cite{melchionna93}
715 > pre-equilibration at a target pressure of 1 atm. When equilibrated
716 > under NPT conditions, our simulation box expanded by approximately 1\%
717 > in volume. Following adjustment of the box volume, equilibrations in
718 > both the canonical and microcanonical ensembles were carried out. With
719 > the simulation cell divided evenly into 10 slabs, different thermal
720 > gradients were established by applying a set of target thermal
721 > transfer fluxes.
722 >
723 > The results for the thermal conductivity of gold are shown in Table
724 > \ref{AuThermal}.  In these calculations, the end and middle slabs were
725 > excluded in thermal gradient linear regession. EAM predicts slightly
726 > larger thermal conductivities than QSC.  However, both values are
727 > smaller than experimental value by a factor of more than 200. This
728 > behavior has been observed previously by Richardson and Clancy, and
729 > has been attributed to the lack of electronic contribution in these
730 > force fields.\cite{Clancy:1992} It should be noted that the density of
731 > the metal being simulated has an effect on thermal conductance. With
732 > an expanded lattice, lower thermal conductance is expected (and
733 > observed). We also observed a decrease in thermal conductance at
734 > higher temperatures, a trend that agrees with experimental
735 > measurements.\cite{AshcroftMermin}
736 >
737 > \begin{table*}
738 >  \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
739 >    \begin{center}
740 >      
741 >      \caption{Calculated thermal conductivity of crystalline gold
742 >        using two related force fields. Calculations were done at both
743 >        experimental and equilibrated densities and at a range of
744 >        temperatures and thermal flux rates. Uncertainties are
745 >        indicated in parentheses. Richardson {\it et
746 >          al.}\cite{Clancy:1992} give an estimate of 1.74 $\mathrm{W
747 >          m}^{-1}\mathrm{K}^{-1}$ for EAM gold
748 >         at a density of 19.263 g / cm$^3$.}
749 >      
750 >      \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|cc|}
751 >        \hline
752 >        Force Field & $\rho$ (g/cm$^3$) & ${\langle T\rangle}$ (K) &
753 >        $\langle dT/dz\rangle$ (K/\AA) & $\lambda (\mathrm{W m}^{-1} \mathrm{K}^{-1})$\\
754 >        \hline
755 >        \multirow{7}{*}{QSC} & \multirow{3}{*}{19.188} & \multirow{3}{*}{300} & 1.44 & 1.10(0.06)\\
756 >        &        &     & 2.86 & 1.08(0.05)\\
757 >        &        &     & 5.14 & 1.15(0.07)\\\cline{2-5}
758 >        & \multirow{4}{*}{19.263} & \multirow{2}{*}{300} & 2.31 & 1.25(0.06)\\
759 >        &        &     & 3.02 & 1.26(0.05)\\\cline{3-5}
760 >        &        & \multirow{2}{*}{575} & 3.02 & 1.02(0.07)\\
761 >        &        &     & 4.84 & 0.92(0.05)\\
762 >        \hline
763 >        \multirow{8}{*}{EAM} & \multirow{3}{*}{19.045} & \multirow{3}{*}{300} & 1.24 & 1.24(0.16)\\
764 >        &        &     & 2.06 & 1.37(0.04)\\
765 >        &        &     & 2.55 & 1.41(0.07)\\\cline{2-5}
766 >        & \multirow{5}{*}{19.263} & \multirow{3}{*}{300} & 1.06 & 1.45(0.13)\\
767 >        &        &     & 2.04 & 1.41(0.07)\\
768 >        &        &     & 2.41 & 1.53(0.10)\\\cline{3-5}
769 >        &        & \multirow{2}{*}{575} & 2.82 & 1.08(0.03)\\
770 >        &        &     & 4.14 & 1.08(0.05)\\
771 >        \hline
772 >      \end{tabular}
773 >      \label{AuThermal}
774 >    \end{center}
775 >  \end{minipage}
776 > \end{table*}
777 >
778 > \subsection{Thermal Conductance at the Au/H$_2$O interface}
779 > The most attractive aspect of the scaling approach for RNEMD is the
780 > ability to use the method in non-homogeneous systems, where molecules
781 > of different identities are segregated in different slabs.  To test
782 > this application, we simulated a Gold (111) / water interface.  To
783 > construct the interface, a box containing a lattice of 1188 Au atoms
784 > (with the 111 surface in the $+z$ and $-z$ directions) was allowed to
785 > relax under ambient temperature and pressure.  A separate (but
786 > identically sized) box of SPC/E water was also equilibrated at ambient
787 > conditions.  The two boxes were combined by removing all water
788 > molecules within 3 \AA radius of any gold atom.  The final
789 > configuration contained 1862 SPC/E water molecules.
790 >
791 > The Spohr potential was adopted in depicting the interaction between
792 > metal atoms and water molecules.\cite{ISI:000167766600035} A similar
793 > protocol of equilibration to our water simulations was followed.  We
794 > observed that the two phases developed large temperature differences
795 > even under a relatively low thermal flux.
796 >
797 > The low interfacial conductance is probably due to an acoustic
798 > impedance mismatch between the solid and the liquid
799 > phase.\cite{Cahill:793,RevModPhys.61.605} Experiments on the thermal
800 > conductivity of gold nanoparticles and nanorods in solvent and in
801 > glass cages have predicted values for $G$ between 100 and 350
802 > (MW/m$^2$/K).  The experiments typically have multiple gold surfaces
803 > that have been protected by a capping agent (citrate or CTAB) or which
804 > are in direct contact with various glassy solids.  In these cases, the
805 > acoustic impedance mismatch would be substantially reduced, leading to
806 > much higher interfacial conductances.  It is also possible, however,
807 > that the lack of electronic effects that gives rise to the low thermal
808 > conductivity of EAM gold is also causing a low reading for this
809 > particular interface.
810 >
811 > Under this low thermal conductance, both gold and water phase have
812 > sufficient time to eliminate temperature difference inside
813 > respectively (Figure \ref{interface} b). With indistinguishable
814 > temperature difference within respective phase, it is valid to assume
815 > that the temperature difference between gold and water on surface
816 > would be approximately the same as the difference between the gold and
817 > water phase. This assumption enables convenient calculation of $G$
818 > using Eq.  \ref{interfaceCalc} instead of measuring temperatures of
819 > thin layer of water and gold close enough to surface, which would have
820 > greater fluctuation and lower accuracy. Reported results (Table
821 > \ref{interfaceRes}) are of two orders of magnitude smaller than our
822 > calculations on homogeneous systems, and thus have larger relative
823 > errors than our calculation results on homogeneous systems.
824 >
825 > \begin{figure}
826 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{interface}
827 > \caption{Temperature profiles of the Gold / Water interface at four
828 >  different values for the thermal flux.  Temperatures for slabs
829 >  either in the gold or in the water show no significant differences,
830 >  although there is a large discontinuity between the materials
831 >  because of the relatively low interfacial thermal conductivity.}
832 > \label{interface}
833 > \end{figure}
834 >
835 > \begin{table*}
836 >  \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
837 >    \begin{center}
838 >      
839 >      \caption{Computed interfacial thermal conductivity ($G$) values
840 >        for the Au(111) / water interface at ${\langle T\rangle \sim}$
841 >        300K using a range of energy fluxes. Uncertainties are
842 >        indicated in parentheses. }
843 >      
844 >      \begin{tabular}{|cccc| }
845 >        \hline
846 >        $J_z$ (MW/m$^2$) & $\langle T_{gold} \rangle$ (K) & $\langle
847 >        T_{water} \rangle$ (K) & $G$
848 >        (MW/m$^2$/K)\\
849 >        \hline
850 >        98.0 & 355.2 & 295.8 & 1.65(0.21) \\
851 >        78.8 & 343.8 & 298.0 & 1.72(0.32) \\
852 >        73.6 & 344.3 & 298.0 & 1.59(0.24) \\
853 >        49.2 & 330.1 & 300.4 & 1.65(0.35) \\
854 >        \hline
855 >      \end{tabular}
856 >      \label{interfaceRes}
857 >    \end{center}
858 >  \end{minipage}
859 > \end{table*}
860 >
861 >
862 > \section{Conclusions}
863 > NIVS-RNEMD simulation method is developed and tested on various
864 > systems. Simulation results demonstrate its validity in thermal
865 > conductivity calculations, from Lennard-Jones fluid to multi-atom
866 > molecule like water and metal crystals. NIVS-RNEMD improves
867 > non-Boltzmann-Maxwell distributions, which exist inb previous RNEMD
868 > methods. Furthermore, it develops a valid means for unphysical thermal
869 > transfer between different species of molecules, and thus extends its
870 > applicability to interfacial systems. Our calculation of gold/water
871 > interfacial thermal conductivity demonstrates this advantage over
872 > previous RNEMD methods. NIVS-RNEMD has also limited application on
873 > shear viscosity calculations, but could cause temperature difference
874 > among different dimensions under high momentum flux. Modification is
875 > necessary to extend the applicability of NIVS-RNEMD in shear viscosity
876 > calculations.
877 >
878 > \section{Acknowledgments}
879 > The authors would like to thank Craig Tenney and Ed Maginn for many
880 > helpful discussions.  Support for this project was provided by the
881 > National Science Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational
882 > time was provided by the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the
883 > University of Notre Dame.  
884 > \newpage
885 >
886   \bibliography{nivsRnemd}
887 +
888   \end{doublespace}
889   \end{document}
890  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines