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

Comparing trunk/nonperiodicVSS/nonperiodicVSS.tex (file contents):
Revision 3990 by kstocke1, Tue Nov 26 20:33:01 2013 UTC vs.
Revision 3991 by kstocke1, Wed Jan 8 22:23:49 2014 UTC

# Line 88 | Line 88 | boundary between materials.
88   is often unclear what shape of gradient should be imposed at the
89   boundary between materials.
90  
91 < \begin{figure}
92 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/VSS}
93 < \caption{Schematics of periodic (left) and non-periodic (right)
94 <  Velocity Shearing and Scaling RNEMD. A kinetic energy or momentum
95 <  flux is applied from region B to region A. Thermal gradients are
96 <  depicted by a color gradient. Linear or angular velocity gradients
97 <  are shown as arrows.}
98 < \label{fig:VSS}
99 < \end{figure}
91 > % \begin{figure}
92 > % \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/VSS}
93 > % \caption{Schematics of periodic (left) and non-periodic (right)
94 > %   Velocity Shearing and Scaling RNEMD. A kinetic energy or momentum
95 > %   flux is applied from region B to region A. Thermal gradients are
96 > %   depicted by a color gradient. Linear or angular velocity gradients
97 > %   are shown as arrows.}
98 > % \label{fig:VSS}
99 > % \end{figure}
100  
101   Reverse Non-Equilibrium Molecular Dynamics (RNEMD) methods impose an
102   unphysical {\it flux} between different regions or ``slabs'' of the
# Line 118 | Line 118 | interfaces.\cite{garde:nl2005,garde:PhysRevLett2009,ku
118   well as heterogeneous
119   interfaces.\cite{garde:nl2005,garde:PhysRevLett2009,kuang:AuThl}
120  
121
121   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
122   % **METHODOLOGY**
123   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# Line 218 | Line 217 | several different systems including bare metal nanopar
217   \subsection{Dynamics for non-periodic systems}
218  
219   We have run all tests using the Langevin Hull nonperiodic simulation methodology.\cite{Vardeman2011} The Langevin Hull is especially useful for simulating heterogeneous mixtures of materials with different compressibilities, which are typically problematic for traditional affine transform methods. We have had success applying this method to
220 < several different systems including bare metal nanoparticles, liquid water clusters, and explicitly solvated nanoparticles. Calculated physical properties such as the isothermal compressibility of water and the bulk modulus of gold nanoparticles are in good agreement with previous theoretical and experimental results. The Langevin Hull uses a Delaunay tesselation to create a dynamic convex hull composed of triangular facets with vertices at atomic sites. Atomic sites included in the hull are coupled to an external bath defined by a temperature, pressure and viscosity. Atoms not included in the hull are subject to standard Newtonian dynamics. For these tests, thermal coupling to the bath was turned off to avoid interference with any imposed kinetic flux. Systems containing liquids were run under moderate pressure ($\sim$ 5 atm) to avoid the formation of a substantial vapor phase.
222 <
223 < %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
224 < % NON-PERIODIC RNEMD
225 < %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226 < \subsection{VSS-RNEMD for non-periodic systems}
227 <
228 < The most useful RNEMD approach developed so far utilizes a series of
229 < simultaneous velocity shearing and scaling (VSS) exchanges between the two
230 < regions.\cite{Kuang2012} This method provides a set of conservation constraints
231 < while simultaneously creating a desired flux between the two regions. Satisfying
232 < the constraint equations ensures that the new configurations are sampled from the
233 < same NVE ensemble.
234 <
235 < We have implemented this new method in OpenMD, our group molecular dynamics code.\cite{openmd} The adaptation of VSS-RNEMD for non-periodic systems is relatively
236 < straightforward. The major modifications to the method are the addition of a rotational shearing term and the use of more versatile hot / cold regions instead
237 < of rectangular slabs. A temperature profile along the $r$ coordinate is created by recording the average temperature of concentric spherical shells.
238 <
239 < \begin{figure}
240 <        \center{\includegraphics[width=7in]{figures/npVSS2}}
241 <        \caption{Schematics of periodic (left) and nonperiodic (right) Velocity Shearing and Scaling RNEMD. A kinetic energy or momentum flux is applied from region B to region A. Thermal gradients are depicted by a color gradient. Linear or angular velocity gradients are shown as arrows.}
242 <        \label{fig:VSS}
243 < \end{figure}
244 <
245 < At each time interval, the particle velocities ($\mathbf{v}_i$ and
246 < $\mathbf{v}_j$) in the cold and hot shells ($C$ and $H$) are modified by a
247 < velocity scaling coefficient ($c$ and $h$), an additive linear velocity shearing
248 < term ($\mathbf{a}_c$ and $\mathbf{a}_h$), and an additive angular velocity
249 < shearing term ($\mathbf{b}_c$ and $\mathbf{b}_h$). Here, $\langle
250 < \mathbf{v}_{i,j} \rangle$ and $\langle \mathbf{\omega}_{i,j} \rangle$ are the
251 < average linear and angular velocities for each shell.
252 < \begin{displaymath}
253 < \begin{array}{rclcl}
254 < & \underline{~~~~~~~~~~\mathrm{scaling}~~~~~~~~~~} & &
255 < \underline{\mathrm{rotational \; shearing}} \\  \\
256 < \mathbf{v}_i $~~~$\leftarrow &
257 <  c \, \left(\mathbf{v}_i - \langle \omega_c
258 <  \rangle \times r_i\right) & + & \mathbf{b}_c \times r_i \\
259 < \mathbf{v}_j $~~~$\leftarrow &
260 <  h \, \left(\mathbf{v}_j - \langle \omega_h
261 <  \rangle \times r_j\right) & + & \mathbf{b}_h \times r_j
262 < \end{array}
263 < \end{displaymath}
220 > several different systems including bare metal nanoparticles, liquid water clusters, and explicitly solvated nanoparticles. Calculated physical properties such as the isothermal compressibility of water and the bulk modulus of gold nanoparticles are in good agreement with previous theoretical and experimental results. The Langevin Hull uses a Delaunay tesselation to create a dynamic convex hull composed of triangular facets with vertices at atomic sites. Atomic sites included in the hull are coupled to an external bath defined by a temperature, pressure and viscosity. Atoms not included in the hull are subject to standard Newtonian dynamics. For these tests, thermal coupling to the bath was turned off to avoid interference with any imposed flux. Systems containing liquids were run under moderate pressure ($\sim$ 5 atm) to avoid the formation of a substantial vapor phase.
221  
265 \begin{eqnarray}
266 \mathbf{b}_c & = & - \mathbf{j}_r(\mathbf{L}) \; \Delta \, t \; I_c^{-1} + \langle \omega_c \rangle \label{eq:bc}\\
267 \mathbf{b}_h & = & + \mathbf{j}_r(\mathbf{L}) \; \Delta \, t \; I_h^{-1} + \langle \omega_h \rangle \label{eq:bh}
268 \end{eqnarray}
269
270 The total energy is constrained via two quadratic formulae,
271 \begin{eqnarray}
272 K_c - J_r \; \Delta \, t & = & c^2 \, (K_c - \frac{1}{2}\langle \omega_c \rangle \cdot I_c\langle \omega_c \rangle) + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{b}_c \cdot I_c \, \mathbf{b}_c \label{eq:Kc}\\
273 K_h + J_r \; \Delta \, t & = & h^2 \, (K_h - \frac{1}{2}\langle \omega_h \rangle \cdot I_h\langle \omega_h \rangle) + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{b}_h \cdot I_h \, \mathbf{b}_h \label{eq:Kh}
274 \end{eqnarray}
275
276 the simultaneous
277 solution of which provide the velocity scaling coefficients $c$ and $h$. Given an
278 imposed angular momentum flux, $\mathbf{j}_{r} \left( \mathbf{L} \right)$, and/or
279 thermal flux, $J_r$, equations \ref{eq:bc} - \ref{eq:Kh} are sufficient to obtain
280 the velocity scaling ($c$ and $h$) and shearing ($\mathbf{b}_c,\,$ and $\mathbf{b}_h$) at each time interval.
281
222   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
223   % **COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS**
224   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# Line 317 | Line 257 | The thermal conductivity, $\lambda$, can be calculated
257   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
258   \subsection{Thermal conductivities}
259  
260 < The thermal conductivity, $\lambda$, can be calculated using the imposed kinetic energy flux, $J_r$, and thermal gradient, $\frac{\partial T}{\partial r}$ measured from the resulting temperature profile
260 > Fourier's Law of heat conduction in radial coordinates is
261  
262   \begin{equation}
263 <        J_r = -\lambda \frac{\partial T}{\partial r}
263 >        q_r = -\lambda A \frac{dT}{dr}
264 >        \label{eq:fourier}
265   \end{equation}
266  
267 + Substituting the area of a sphere and integrating between $r = r_1$ and $r_2$ and $T = T_1$ and $T_2$, we arrive at an expression for the heat flow between the concentric spherical RNEMD shells:
268 +
269 + \begin{equation}
270 +        q_r = - \frac{4 \pi \lambda (T_2 - T_1)}{\frac{1}{r_1} - \frac{1}{r_2}}
271 +        \label{eq:Q}
272 + \end{equation}
273 +
274 + Once a stable thermal gradient has been established between the two regions, the thermal conductivity, $\lambda$, can be calculated using the the temperature difference between the selected RNEMD regions, the radii of the two shells, and the heat, $q_r$, transferred between the regions.
275 +
276 + \begin{equation}
277 +        \lambda = \frac{q_r (\frac{1}{r_2} - \frac{1}{r_1})}{4 \pi (T_2 - T_1)}
278 +        \label{eq:lambda}
279 + \end{equation}
280 +
281 + The heat transferred between the two RNEMD regions is the amount of transferred kinetic energy over the length of the simulation, t
282 +
283 + \begin{equation}
284 +        q_r = \frac{KE}{t}
285 +        \label{eq:heat}
286 + \end{equation}
287 +
288   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
289   % INTERFACIAL THERMAL CONDUCTANCE
290   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# Line 344 | Line 306 | The slip length, $\delta$, is defined as the ratio of
306   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
307   \subsection{Interfacial friction}
308  
309 < The slip length, $\delta$, is defined as the ratio of the interfacial friction coefficient, $\kappa$, and dynamic solvent viscosity, $\eta$
309 > Analytical solutions for the rotational friction coefficients for a solvated spherical body of radius $r$ under ideal ``stick'' boundary conditions can be estimated using Stokes' law
310  
311   \begin{equation}
312 <        \delta = \frac{\eta}{\kappa}
312 >        \Xi^{rr} = 8 \pi \eta r^3
313 >        \label{eq:Xistick}.
314   \end{equation}
315  
316 < and is measured from a radial angular momentum profile generated from a nonperiodic VSS-RNEMD simulation.
316 > where $\eta$ is the dynamic viscosity of the surrounding solvent and was determined for TraPPE-UA hexane by applying a traditional VSS-RNEMD linear momentum flux to a periodic box of solvent under the same temperature and pressure conditions as the nonperiodic systems.
317  
318 < Analytical solutions for the rotational friction coefficients for a solvated spherical body of radius $r$ under ``stick'' boundary conditions can be estimated using Stokes' law
318 > For general ellipsoids with semiaxes $a$, $b$, and $c$, Perrin's extension of Stokes' law provides exact solutions for symmetric prolate $(a \geq b = c)$ and oblate $(a < b = c)$ ellipsoids. For simplicity, we define a Perrin Factor, $S$,
319  
320   \begin{equation}
321 <        \Xi = 8 \pi \eta r^3 \label{eq:Xi}.
321 >        S = \frac{2}{\sqrt{a^2 - b^2}} ln \left[ \frac{a + \sqrt{a^2 - b^2}}{b} \right].        \label{eq:S}
322   \end{equation}
323  
324 < where $\eta$ is the dynamic viscosity of the surrounding solvent and was determined for TraPPE-UA hexane under these condition by applying a traditional VSS-RNEMD linear momentum flux to a periodic box of solvent.
324 > For a prolate ellipsoidal rod, demonstrated here, the rotational resistance tensor $\Xi$ is a $3 \times 3$ diagonal matrix with elements
325 > \begin{equation}
326 >        \Xi^{rr}_a = \frac{32 \pi}{2} \eta \frac{ \left( a^2 - b^2 \right) b^2}{2a - b^2 S}
327 >        \label{eq:Xia}
328 > \end{equation}\vspace{-0.45in}\\
329 > \begin{equation}
330 >        \Xi^{rr}_{b,c} = \frac{32 \pi}{2} \eta \frac{ \left( a^4 - b^4 \right)}{ \left( 2a^2 - b^2 \right)S - 2a}.
331 >        \label{eq:Xibc}
332 > \end{equation}
333  
334 < For general ellipsoids with semiaxes $a$, $b$, and $c$, Perrin's extension of Stokes' law provides exact solutions for symmetric prolate $(a \geq b = c)$ and oblate $(a < b = c)$ ellipsoids. For simplicity, we define a Perrin Factor, $S$,
334 > The effective rotational friction coefficient at the interface can be extracted from nonperiodic VSS-RNEMD simulations quite easily using the applied torque ($\tau$) and the observed angular velocity of the gold structure ($\omega_{Au}$)
335  
336   \begin{equation}
337 <        S = \frac{2}{\sqrt{a^2 - b^2}} ln \left[ \frac{a + \sqrt{a^2 - b^2}}{b} \right]. \label{eq:S}
337 >        \Xi^{rr}_{\mathit{eff}} = \frac{\tau}{\omega_{Au}}
338 >        \label{eq:Xieff}
339   \end{equation}
340  
341 < For a prolate ellipsoidal rod, demonstrated here, the rotational resistance tensor $\Xi$ is a $3 \times 3$ diagonal matrix with elements
341 > The applied torque required to overcome the interfacial friction and maintain constant rotation of the gold is
342 >
343   \begin{equation}
344 <        \Xi^{rr}_a = \frac{32 \pi}{2} \eta \frac{ \left( a^2 - b^2 \right) b^2}{2a - b^2 S}
345 < \label{eq:Xia}
344 >        \tau = \frac{L}{2 t}
345 >        \label{eq:tau}  
346   \end{equation}
374 \begin{equation}
375        \Xi^{rr}_{b,c} = \frac{32 \pi}{2} \eta \frac{ \left( a^4 - b^4 \right)}{ \left( 2a^2 - b^2 \right)S - 2a}.                                      \label{eq:Xibc}
376 \end{equation}
347  
348 + where $L$ is the total angular momentum exchanged between the two RNEMD regions and $t$ is the length of the simulation.
349 +
350   % However, the friction between hexane solvent and gold more likely falls within ``slip'' boundary conditions. Hu and Zwanzig\cite{Zwanzig} investigated the rotational friction coefficients for spheroids under slip boundary conditions and obtained numerial results for a scaling factor as a function of $\tau$, the ratio of the shorter semiaxes and the longer semiaxis of the spheroid. For the sphere and prolate ellipsoid shown here, the values of $\tau$ are $1$ and $0.3939$, respectively. According to the values tabulated by Hu and Zwanzig, the sphere friction coefficient approaches $0$, while the ellipsoidal friction coefficient must be scaled by a factor of $0.880$ to account for the reduced interfacial friction under ``slip'' boundary conditions.
351  
352 < Another useful quantity is the friction factor $f$, or the friction coefficient of a non-spherical shape divided by the friction coefficient of a sphere of equivalent volume. The nanoparticle and ellipsoidal nanorod dimensions used here were specifically chosen to create structures with equal volumes.
352 > % Another useful quantity is the friction factor $f$, or the friction coefficient of a non-spherical shape divided by the friction coefficient of a sphere of equivalent volume. The nanoparticle and ellipsoidal nanorod dimensions used here were specifically chosen to create structures with equal volumes.
353  
354   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355   % **TESTS AND APPLICATIONS**
# Line 389 | Line 361 | Calculated values for the thermal conductivity of a 40
361   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
362   \subsection{Thermal conductivities}
363  
364 < Calculated values for the thermal conductivity of a 40 \AA$~$ radius gold nanoparticle (15707 atoms) at different kinetic energy flux values are shown in Table \ref{table:goldconductivity}. For these calculations, the hot and cold slabs were excluded from the linear regression of the thermal gradient. The measured linear slope $\langle dT / dr \rangle$ is linearly dependent on the applied kinetic energy flux $J_r$. Calculated thermal conductivity values compare well with previous bulk QSC values of 1.08 -- 1.26 W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$\cite{Kuang2010}, though still significantly lower than the experimental value of 320 W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$, as the QSC force field neglects significant electronic contributions to heat conduction. The small increase relative to previous simulated bulk values is due to a slight increase in gold density -- as expected, an increase in density results in higher thermal conductivity values. The increased density is a result of nanoparticle curvature relative to an infinite bulk slab, which introduces surface tension that increases ambient density.
364 > Calculated values for the thermal conductivity of a 40 \AA$~$ radius gold nanoparticle (15707 atoms) at different kinetic energy flux values are shown in Table \ref{table:goldTC}. For these calculations, the hot and cold slabs were excluded from the linear regression of the thermal gradient. The measured linear slope $\langle dT / dr \rangle$ is linearly dependent on the applied kinetic energy flux $J_r$. Calculated thermal conductivity values compare well with previous bulk QSC values of 1.08 -- 1.26 W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$\cite{Kuang2010}, though still significantly lower than the experimental value of 320 W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$, as the QSC force field neglects significant electronic contributions to heat conduction.
365  
366 + % The small increase relative to previous simulated bulk values is due to a slight increase in gold density -- as expected, an increase in density results in higher thermal conductivity values. The increased density is a result of nanoparticle curvature relative to an infinite bulk slab, which introduces surface tension that increases ambient density.
367 +
368   \begin{longtable}{ccc}
369   \caption{Calculated thermal conductivity of a crystalline gold nanoparticle of radius 40 \AA. Calculations were performed at 300 K and ambient density. Gold-gold interactions are described by the Quantum Sutton-Chen potential.}
370   \\ \hline \hline
371   {$J_r$} & {$\langle dT / dr \rangle$} & {$\boldsymbol \lambda$}\\
372   {\small(kcal fs$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-2}$)} & {\small(K \AA$^{-1}$)} & {\small(W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$)}\\ \hline
373 < 3.25$\times 10^{-6}$ & 0.11435 & 1.9753 \\
374 < 6.50$\times 10^{-6}$ & 0.2324 & 1.9438 \\
375 < 1.30$\times 10^{-5}$ & 0.44922 & 2.0113 \\
376 < 3.25$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.1802 & 1.9139 \\
377 < 6.50$\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.339 & 1.9314
373 > 3.25$\times 10^{-6}$ & 0.11435 & 1.0143 \\
374 > 6.50$\times 10^{-6}$ & 0.2324 & 0.9982 \\
375 > 1.30$\times 10^{-5}$ & 0.44922 & 1.0328 \\
376 > 3.25$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.1802 & 0.9828 \\
377 > 6.50$\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.339 & 0.9918 \\
378 > \hline
379 > This work & & 1.0040
380   \\ \hline \hline
381 < \label{table:goldconductivity}
381 > \label{table:goldTC}
382   \end{longtable}
383  
384 < Calculated values for the thermal conductivity of a cluster of 6912 SPC/E water molecules are shown in Table \ref{table:waterconductivity}.
384 > Calculated values for the thermal conductivity of a cluster of 6912 SPC/E water molecules are shown in Table \ref{table:waterTC}. As with the gold nanoparticle thermal conductivity calculations, the RNEMD regions were excluded from the $\langle dT / dr \rangle$ fit. Again, the measured slope is linearly dependent on the applied kinetic energy flux $J_r$. The average calculated thermal conductivity from this work, $0.8841$ W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$, compares very well to previous nonequilibrium molecular dynamics results (0.81 and 0.87 W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$\cite{Romer2012, Zhang2005}) and experimental values (0.607 W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$\cite{WagnerKruse})
385  
386   \begin{longtable}{ccc}
387 < \caption{Calculated thermal conductivity of a cluster of 6912 SPC/E water molecules. Calculations were performed at 300 K and ambient density.}
387 > \caption{Calculated thermal conductivity of a cluster of 6912 SPC/E water molecules. Calculations were performed at 300 K and 5 atm.}
388   \\ \hline \hline
389   {$J_r$} & {$\langle dT / dr \rangle$} & {$\boldsymbol \lambda$}\\
390   {\small(kcal fs$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-2}$)} & {\small(K \AA$^{-1}$)} & {\small(W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$)}\\ \hline
391 < 1.00$\times 10^{-5}$ & 0.38683 & 1.79665486\\
392 < 3.00$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.1643 & 1.79077557\\
393 < 6.00$\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.2262 & 1.87314707\\
394 < \hline \hline
395 < \label{table:waterconductivity}
391 > 1$\times 10^{-5}$ & 0.38683 & 0.8698 \\
392 > 3$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.1643 & 0.9098 \\
393 > 6$\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.2262 & 0.8727 \\
394 > \hline
395 > This work & & 0.8841 \\
396 > Zhang, et al\cite{Zhang2005} & & 0.81 \\
397 > R$\ddot{\mathrm{o}}$mer, et al\cite{Romer2012} & & 0.87 \\
398 > Experiment\cite{WagnerKruse} & & 0.61
399 > \\ \hline \hline
400 > \label{table:waterTC}
401   \end{longtable}
402  
403   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# Line 425 | Line 406 | Calculated values for the thermal conductivity of a cl
406   \subsection{Interfacial thermal conductance}
407  
408   \begin{longtable}{ccc}
409 < \caption{Caption.}
409 > \caption{Calculated interfacial thermal conductance (G) values for gold nanoparticles of varying radii solvated in explicit TraPPE-UA hexane. The nanoparticle G values are compared to previous results for a gold slab in TraPPE-UA hexane, revealing increased interfacial thermal conductance for non-planar interfaces.}
410   \\ \hline \hline
411 < {Nanoparticle Radius} & $J_r$ & {G}\\
412 < {\small(\AA)} & {\small(kcal fs$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-2}$)}  & {\small(W m$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$)}\\ \hline
413 < 20 & & 59.66 \\
414 < 30 & & 57.88 \\
415 < 40 & & 37.48 \\
416 < $\infty$ & & 30.2 \\
411 > {Nanoparticle Radius} & {G}\\
412 > {\small(\AA)} & {\small(W m$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$)}\\ \hline
413 > 20 & {49.3} \\
414 > 30 & {46.9} \\
415 > 40 & {47.3} \\
416 > slab & {30.2} \\
417   \hline \hline
418   \label{table:interfacialconductance}
419   \end{longtable}
# Line 442 | Line 423 | Table \ref{table:interfacialfrictionstick} shows the c
423   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
424   \subsection{Interfacial friction}
425  
426 < Table \ref{table:interfacialfrictionstick} shows the calculated interfacial friction coefficients $\kappa$ for spherical gold nanoparticles and a prolate ellipsoidal gold nanorod in TraPPE-UA hexane. An angular momentum flux was applied between the A and B regions defined as the gold structure and hexane molecules beyond a certain radius, respectively. The resulting angular velocity gradient resulted in the gold structure rotating about the prescribed axis within the solvent.
426 > Table \ref{table:couple} shows the calculated rotational friction coefficients $\Xi^{rr}$ for spherical gold nanoparticles and a prolate ellipsoidal gold nanorod in TraPPE-UA hexane. An angular momentum flux was applied between the A and B regions defined as the gold structure and hexane molecules beyond a certain radius, respectively. The resulting angular velocity gradient causes the gold structure to rotate about the prescribed axis.
427          
428 < \begin{longtable}{lccccc}
429 < \caption{Calculated ``stick'' interfacial friction coefficients ($\kappa$) and friction factors ($f$) of gold nanostructures solvated in TraPPE-UA hexane at 230 K. The ellipsoid is oriented with the long axis along the $z$ direction.}
428 > \begin{longtable}{lcccc}
429 > \caption{Comparison of rotational friction coefficients under ideal ``stick'' conditions ($\Xi^{rr}_{stick}$) calculated via Stokes' and Perrin's laws and effective rotational friction coefficients ($\Xi^{rr}_{\mathit{eff}}$) of gold nanostructures solvated in TraPPE-UA hexane at 230 K. The ellipsoid is oriented with the long axis along the $z$ direction.}
430   \\ \hline \hline
431 < {Structure} & {Axis of Rotation} & {$\kappa_{VSS}$} & {$\kappa_{calc}$} & {$f_{VSS}$} & {$f_{calc}$}\\
432 < {} & {} & {\small($10^{-29}$ Pa s m$^{3}$)} & {\small($10^{-29}$ Pa s m$^{3}$)} & {} & {}\\  \hline
433 < {Sphere (r = 20 \AA)} & {$x = y = z$} & {} & {6.13239} & {1} & {1}\\
434 < {Sphere (r = 30 \AA)} & {$x = y = z$} & {} & {20.6968} & {1} & {1}\\
435 < {Sphere (r = 40 \AA)} & {$x = y = z$} & {} & {49.0591} & {1} & {1}\\
436 < {Prolate Ellipsoid} & {$x = y$} & {} & {8.22846} & {} & {1.92477}\\
437 < {Prolate Ellipsoid} & {$z$} & {} & {3.28634} & {} & {0.768726}\\
431 > {Structure} & {Axis of Rotation} & {$\Xi^{rr}_{stick}$} & {$\Xi^{rr}_{\mathit{eff}}$} & {$\Xi^{rr}_{\mathit{eff}}$ / $\Xi^{rr}_{stick}$}\\
432 > {} & {} & {\small(amu A$^2$ fs$^{-1}$)} & {\small(amu A$^2$ fs$^{-1}$)} & \\  \hline
433 > Sphere (r = 20 \AA) & {$x = y = z$} & {3314} & {2386} & {0.720}\\
434 > Sphere (r = 30 \AA) & {$x = y = z$} & {11749} & {8415} & {0.716}\\
435 > Sphere (r = 40 \AA) & {$x = y = z$} & {34464} & {47544} & {1.380}\\
436 > Prolate Ellipsoid & {$x = y$} & {4991} & {3128} & {0.627}\\
437 > Prolate Ellipsoid & {$z$} & {1993} & {1590} & {0.798}\\
438    \hline \hline
439 < \label{table:interfacialfrictionstick}
439 > \label{table:couple}
440   \end{longtable}
441  
461 % \begin{longtable}{lccc}
462 % \caption{Calculated ``slip'' interfacial friction coefficients ($\kappa$) and friction factors ($f$) of gold nanostructures solvated in TraPPE-UA hexane. The ellipsoid is oriented with the long axis along the $z$ direction.}
463 % \\ \hline \hline
464 % {Structure} & {Axis of rotation} & {$\kappa_{VSS}$} & {$\kappa_{calc}$}\\
465 % {} & {} & {\small($10^{-29}$ Pa s m$^{3}$)} & {\small($10^{-29}$ Pa s m$^{3}$)}\\  \hline
466 % {Sphere} & {$x = y = z$} & {} & {0}\\
467 % {Prolate Ellipsoid} & {$x = y$} & {} & {0}\\
468 % {Prolate Ellipsoid} & {$z$} & {} & {7.9295392}\\  \hline \hline
469 % \label{table:interfacialfrictionslip}
470 % \end{longtable}
471
442   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443   % **DISCUSSION**
444   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines