1: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Heat Conduction in Low Dimensions: From Fermi-Pasta-Ulam Chains
8: to Single-Walled Nanotubes}
9: \author{Peter Grassberger and Lei Yang}
10: \affiliation{John-von-Neumann Institute for Computing, Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
11: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany}
12:
13: \date{\today}
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: Heat conduction in 1-dimensional anharmonic systems is anomalous in
17: the sense that the conductivity $\kappa$ scales with a positive power
18: of the system size, $\kappa\sim L^\alpha$. In two dimensions, previous
19: simulations and theoretical arguments gave a logarithmic divergence.
20: For rectangular systems of size $L_\|\times L_\perp$ there should be
21: a cross-over from the 2-d to the 1-d behaviour as the aspect ratio
22: $r = L_\|/ L_\perp$ increases from $r=1$ to $r\gg 1$. When taking
23: periodic boundary conditions in the transverse direction, this should
24: be of direct relevance for the heat conduction in single-walled carbon
25: nanotubes. In particular, one expects that $k$ nanotubes of diameter
26: $R$ should conduct heat better than a single
27: nanotube of the same length and of radius $kR$. We study this cross-over
28: numerically by simulating the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam model. Apart from giving
29: a precise estimate of the exponent $\alpha$, our most intriguing results
30: are that the divergence does not seem to be logarithmic in $d=2$ but also
31: power-like, and that the cross-over does not happen at a fixed aspect
32: ratio. Instead, it happens at $r=r^*$ with $r^*\to \infty$ for $L\to\infty$.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: After years of intense studies it is now clear that heat conduction in
38: typical anharmonic systems is anomalous in low dimensions \cite{lepri-review}.
39: In particular, in 1-d systems like the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) $\beta$-model
40: \cite{beta}, the diatomic Toda chain \cite{hatano}, or in 1-d hard-particle
41: gases with alternating masses \cite{hatano,dhar,grass-lei,casati-prozen} the
42: heat conductivity $\kappa$, defined by $J(x) = \kappa \nabla T(x)$, scales
43: as
44: \begin{equation}
45: \kappa \sim L^\alpha \label{kappa}
46: \end{equation}
47: where $L$ is the size of the system. Notice that
48: we have assumed here that $T(x)$ exists, i.e. that local thermal equilibrium
49: (LTE) is established in the limit $L\to\infty$, which is non-trivial
50: \cite{dhar2} but seems to be true for these systems.
51:
52: The main reason for this anomalous behaviour is the fact that the free path
53: length of phonons with long wave lengths $\lambda$ diverges for $\lambda
54: \to \infty$. Thus soft modes propagate nearly ballistically. In higher
55: dimensions this is also true, but due to the enlarged phase space for
56: other modes it is restricted to such a small region that $\kappa$ remains
57: finite. In 1 dimension there are just not enough other modes with which
58: soft phonons could interact to make $\kappa$ finite. This argument
59: requires of course that there is an acoustic phonon branch, i.e. that
60: soft (Goldstone) modes exist because translation invariance is not
61: broken. Thus this argument does not apply to charge conduction where the
62: electrons move in an external potential braking translation invariance.
63:
64: For 2-d systems, simulations of FPU lattices of rather modest sizes
65: \cite{lippi} indicated a logarithmic divergence $\kappa \sim \ln L$. This
66: was also supported by mode coupling theory. Indeed, a logarithmic divergence
67: should not be too surprising in view of the logarithmic divergence of
68: transport coefficients in 2-d hydrodynamics \cite{evans} due to long
69: time tails. In \cite{lippi} it was also observed that the cross-over from
70: the 1-d to the 2-d scaling in rectangular systems happens at surprisingly
71: large aspect ratios. Consider a system of size $L_\|\times L_\perp$ where
72: the length $L_\|$ is parallel to the heat flow. The aspect ratio is
73: defined as $r = L_\|/ L_\perp$. For the sizes studied in \cite{lippi},
74: the cross-over happened at $r\approx 10$, but no detailed study was
75: made.
76:
77: The main aim of the present paper is to present detailed simulations
78: of the FPU $\beta$-model on much larger lattices than in \cite{lippi},
79: in order to study in detail the asymptotic behaviour of 2-d systems
80: and of the cross-over. But before doing so, let us point out that this
81: study is not entirely academic. It is of immediate experimental and maybe
82: even of technological importance.
83:
84: The lattices which we shall use have periodic boundary conditions in the
85: transverse direction. Therefore, we actually study the heat conduction
86: through (single-walled) tubes. By far the most important nanotubes are
87: those made of carbon \cite{nanotubes}. Their heat conduction is dominated
88: by phonons. They can be made with very few lattice defects, such that
89: their conductivity is basically controlled by phonon-phonon interactions
90: as in the FPU model. Indeed, this conductivity has been both calculated
91: \cite{nano-sim} and measured \cite{nano-exp}, and is found to be very large.
92: It was thus suggested that carbon nanotubes should be the ideal material to
93: carry away Joule heat in the next generation of integrated circuits which
94: will use nanoscale structures and for which cooling will be a major
95: problem. Since most molecular dynamics simulations and measurements were
96: done for fixed tube lengths, no length dependence of $\kappa$ was seen
97: in them. The only exception is Ref.\cite{maruyama} where a clear length
98: dependence of $\kappa$ was seen for the narrowest tubes, but not for
99: wider ones.
100:
101: In all simulations of carbon nanotubes the realistic Tersoff-Brenner
102: potential \cite{brenner} was used. If, as we claim, the size dependence
103: of $\kappa$ is universal, its main features (and in particular the
104: exponent $\alpha$ in Eq.(\ref{kappa})) should be independent of the
105: potential. There will be of course unknown scale factors when transferring
106: our results from FPU systems to carbon tubes, nevertheless we should be able
107: to use our results directly for an experimentally accessible system.
108:
109: In our FPU simulations we used a square lattice with sites indexed by
110: integer vectors ${\bf n} = (i,j)$ with $1\le i \le N_x$ and $1\le j \le N_y$.
111: We use periodic b.c. in $j$. The lattice constant, the particle mass, and
112: the $\beta$ parameter are all set to unity. Thus $N_x=L_\|$ and
113: $N_y=L_\perp$ and, apart from the heat baths at $i=1$ and $i=N_x$, the
114: hamiltonian is
115: \be
116: H = {1\over 2}\sum_{\bf n} p_{\bf n}^2 + \sum_{<{\bf n, m}>}
117: \left[{1\over 2}(q_{\bf n}-q_{\bf m})^2 + {1\over 4}(q_{\bf n}-q_{\bf m})^4
118: \right]\;.
119: \ee
120: Notice that identically the same form (with $N_y=1$) can be used also for
121: 1-d chains. To measure a heat flux we keep the left boundary ($i=1$) at a
122: lower temperature $T_h = 10$, and the right boundary ($i=N_x$) at $T_c = 6$.
123: These are fairly large in order to obtain fast equilibration (similar temperatures
124: were used in \cite{beta}). These thermostats are implemented as Nos{\'e}-Hoover
125: \cite{evans} heat baths with response times $\Theta=1$. Thus the equations
126: of motion for the particles in the boundaries are modified to
127: \be
128: \ddot{q}_{\bf n} = - {\partial H \over \partial q_{\bf n}} -
129: \xi_{\bf n} p_{\bf n} \qquad {\rm with} \qquad
130: \dot{\xi}_{\bf n} = {p_{\bf n}^2\over T} - 1\;. \label{hoover}
131: \ee
132: Since our overall accuracy was mainly limited by statistical fluctuations and
133: not by integration errors, we used mainly a simple leap-frog integrator
134: \cite{evans} with a large step size $dt=0.05$. Test runs with smaller $dt$
135: were made to verify the results (see below). Total integration times
136: were typically between $2\times 10^6$ and $2\times 10^8$ units.
137:
138: \begin{figure}
139: %Fig 1
140: \psfig{file=Fig1.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
141: \caption{Temperature profiles for lattices with $N_x=128$ and $N_y=1, 3$, and 32.
142: For these simulations we used a smaller step size $dt = 0.025$.}
143: \end{figure}
144:
145: \begin{figure}
146: %Fig 2
147: \psfig{file=Fig2.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
148: \caption{Normalized kurtosis profiles from the same runs used also in Fig.1.}
149: \end{figure}
150:
151: Although there exist more sophisticated symplectic integrators
152: for Nos{\'e}-Hoover baths \cite{leapfrog}, and although the
153: standard form given in Eq.(\ref{hoover})
154: is not symplectic, the straightforward leap-frog was also used for them.
155: Apart from simplicity and robustness, our main reason was that LTE
156: should be strongly violated at the boundaries anyhow, due to the
157: large temperature gradients \cite{lepri-review} at the boundaries (see also
158: Fig.1). If LTE would hold everywhere, and $\kappa$ would depend only on
159: $T$ and on the system size, the constancy of the heat flow throughout the
160: sample would imply a nearly linear temperature profile (since $\kappa$ depends
161: smoothly on $T$). This is obviously not the case. A more direct check of LTE
162: is obtained by estimating the normalized kurtosis (fourth cumulant) of the
163: momentum distribution,
164: \be
165: Q_i = {N_y \langle \sum_{j=1}^{N_y} p_{(i,j)}^4\rangle \over
166: \left(\langle \sum_{j=1}^{N_y} p_{(i,j)}^2\rangle\right)^2} - 3\;.
167: \ee
168: In Fig.2 we show these cumulants for length $N_x=128$ and different widths.
169: All three curves show that indeed $|Q_i| \ll 1$, verifying approximate LTE
170: (for larger $N_x$ we find even smaller $Q_i$, as we should expect from the
171: fact that temperature gradients decrease with $N_x$). The detailed curves
172: depend strongly on $N_y$, but in all cases the kurtosis is largest near
173: the boundaries. Thus data obtained from the boundary regions should not
174: be used for the analysis anyhow, and integration errors in these regions
175: should not matter too much.
176:
177: Like the kurtosis, local temperatures and heat fluxes were indeed not
178: calculated as functions
179: of the spatial positions $(x, y)$ but for fixed particles: The temperature
180: of the $i$-th layer is simply $T_i = N_y^{-1} \langle \sum_{j=1}^{N_y}
181: p_{(i,j)}^2\rangle$, while the average heat flux through any horizontal
182: bond connecting the layers $i$ and $i+1$ is
183: \be
184: J_i = (2N_y)^{-1} \langle \sum_{j=1}^{N_y} (\dot{q}_{(i,j)}
185: +\dot{q}_{(i+1,j)} ) F_{(i,j)} \rangle,
186: \ee
187: where $F_{(i,j)}$ is the force acting between particles $(i,j)$ and
188: $(i+1,j)$. We checked that indeed $J_i$ is independent of $i$, within the
189: statistical errors.
190:
191: \begin{figure}
192: %Fig 3
193: \psfig{file=Fig3.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
194: \caption{Conductivities defined by Eq.(\ref{global}) for systems with fixed
195: lengths $N_x=32,64,128,\ldots 8192$ against $N_y$ (for $N_x=8192$ there
196: is one single point at $N_y=1$). Statistical and
197: integration errors are less than 2 percent.}
198: \end{figure}
199:
200: \begin{figure}
201: %Fig 4
202: \psfig{file=Fig4.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
203: \caption{Conductivities defined by Eq.(\ref{local}) from the same runs
204: as the data in Fig.3.}
205: \end{figure}
206:
207: \begin{figure}
208: %Fig 5
209: \psfig{file=Fig5.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
210: \caption{Same data as in Fig.~4, but plotted against $N_x$ and with data
211: for the same $N_y$ connected by lines.}
212: \end{figure}
213:
214: Conductivities obtained by dividing the flux by the globally averaged
215: temperature gradient,
216: \be
217: \kappa_{\rm global} = {\sum_{i=1}^{N_x} J_i \over (T_h - T_c) }\;,
218: \label{global}
219: \ee
220: are shown in Fig.~3, while conductivities obtained by using the gradient
221: averaged only over the central half of the lattice,
222: \be
223: \kappa_{\rm center} = {\sum_{i=1}^{N_x} J_i \over N_x (dT/dx)_{\rm center}}
224: \label{local}
225: \ee
226: with $(dT/dx)_{\rm center} = 2 (T_{3N_x/4} - T_{N_x/4})/N_x$, are shown in
227: Figs.~4 and 5. There are small but significant differences
228: between the two definitions of $\kappa$. In general, the plots for
229: $\kappa_{\rm center}$ show slightly more structures. We argue that they are
230: more relevant, since they are less affected by boundary effects. We show the
231: data for $\kappa_{\rm global}$ also, because they are much less noisy.
232:
233: From Figs.~3 and 4 we see that $\kappa$ saturates for large $N_y$. The
234: saturation values increase roughly power-like with $N_x$. For intermediate
235: $N_y$ there are very shallow minima, at $(N_y)_{\rm min} \sim N_x^{0.35}$.
236: A rough fit to the data for $N_y > 2$ is obtained with a scaling ansatz
237: \be
238: \kappa = N_x^{\alpha'} \phi(N_y/N_x^\beta) \;,
239: \qquad \alpha' = 0.26,\;\beta = 0.35\;. \label{scaling}
240: \ee
241: with $\phi(x) \approx const$ for $x\gg 1$ and $\phi(x) \sim x^{(\alpha'-\alpha)/\beta}$
242: for $x\to 0$. Thus the cross-over happens at $r^* \sim N_x^{1-\beta} = N_x^{0.65}$.
243: As seen from Fig. 5, both the 1-d behaviour ($r=\infty$)
244: and the behaviour at $r \ll r^*$ are rougly power like, but with different
245: powers. In between, $\kappa$ increases even faster with $N_x$ (for fixed
246: $N_y$).
247:
248: For fixed aspect ratios this leads to a decrease of $\kappa$ with
249: $N_x$ for small $N_x$ ($r > r^*(N_x)$), and to a power increase for large
250: $N_x$ (see Fig.~6). Indeed one sees definite deviations from a pure power
251: law, even for large $N_x$. This means that $\kappa$ increases asymptotically
252: less fast than suggested by a simple least square fit to the present data
253: (which would give the exponent $\alpha'=0.26$ used in Eq.(\ref{scaling})).
254: Thus the true asymptotic exponent $\alpha(2{\rm d})$ for 2-d lattices is
255: less than $\alpha'$. Any detailed extrapolation is of course uncertain,
256: but our best estimate is $\alpha(2{\rm d}) = 0.22\pm 0.03$.
257:
258: \begin{figure}
259: %Fig 6
260: \psfig{file=Fig6.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
261: \caption{Conductivities defined by Eq.(\ref{local}) for fixed aspect ratios.}
262: \end{figure}
263:
264: \begin{figure}
265: %Fig 7
266: \psfig{file=Fig7.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
267: \caption{The data for $N_y=1$, divided by $N_x^{0.37}$. The upper two curves
268: are for $\kappa_{\rm center}$, the lower for $\kappa_{\rm global}$.}
269: \end{figure}
270:
271: In order to see more precisely the behaviour of 1-d chains (where we have
272: much higher statistics than for $N_y>1$), and to see more clearly the errors
273: made by the finite step size $dt$, we show $\kappa / N_x^{0.37}$ in Fig.~7.
274: Indeed the uncertainty in the definition of $\kappa$ is much
275: more important than the integration error. Although the latter is much
276: larger than the statistical error (since we obtained very high statistics
277: for $N_y=1$), it has hardly any effect on the scaling of $\kappa$. While
278: the curves for $\kappa_{\rm global}$ seem to flatten for large $N_x$, those for
279: $\kappa_{\rm center}$ seem to turn upward again for very large $N_x$, after
280: having bent downward for intermediate $N_x$. Essentially the same behaviour
281: was seen for the 1-d gas with alternating masses in \cite{grass-lei}.
282: Again any extrapolation is rather uncertain, our best estimate is
283: $\alpha(1{\rm d}) = 0.37\pm 0.01$.
284:
285:
286: In summary, we have studied the heat conduction on rectangular 2-d FPU
287: lattices with periodic lateral boundary conditions, including lattices
288: with zero width (i.e. linear chains). We argued that the divergence of
289: the conductivity with system
290: size should be universal, so that our results should apply also, among
291: others, to carbon nanotubes. One striking result is that we do not see
292: the logarithmic increase of $\kappa$ found in \cite{lippi}. At least for
293: system sizes up to five times the size of those studied in
294: \cite{lippi}, the increase is power-like, with an exponent larger than 0.2.
295: This increase flattens somewhat for even larger lattices, but our best
296: asymptotic estimate is still around 0.2. For $d=1$ our estimate of the
297: exponent $\alpha$ is slightly smaller than previous ones, but
298: compatible with them.
299:
300: Our other striking result is that the cross-over from 1-d to 2-d behaviour
301: happens at an aspect ratio which diverges with system size. Thus it might
302: be difficult to see the true 1-d behaviour in carbon nanotubes. But this
303: does not mean that $\kappa$ should not increase with their length, quite
304: to the contrary: The increase at presently achievable tube lengths might
305: even be faster than both the asymptotic 1-d and 2-d power laws, in view
306: of the special shape of the cross-over. Since $\kappa$ is decreasing with
307: the width $L_\perp$ for large aspect ratios, two tubes with small radius
308: conduct better than one tube with twice the radius. Thus, if one wants to
309: maximize the heat flux for a given amount of carbon and a given length of
310: the tubes, one should make the tubes as narrow as possible.
311:
312: Finally we would like to point out that the effect we discussed in this
313: paper is closely related to the Casimir force. The latter deals with the
314: change in energy of a cavity due to elimination of vacuum modes by the
315: cavity walls. The enhanced conductivity of narrow strips compared to
316: the bulk is due to the elimination of transverse phonons (i.e. phonons with
317: $p_y \ne 0$), the interactions with which otherwise would limit the free
318: path length of soft longitudinal phonons which contribute to the energy
319: transport.
320:
321: We are indebted to Roberto Livi and Antonio Politi for very helpful
322: correspondence, and to Walter Nadler for numerous discussions.
323:
324: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
325: \bibitem{lepri-review} S. Lepri, R. Livi, and A. Politi, cond-mat/0112193 (2001).
326: \bibitem{beta} S. Lepri, R. Livi, and A. Politi, Europhys. Lett.
327: {\bf 43}, 271 (1998); Physica D {119}, 140 (1998).
328: \bibitem{hatano} T. Hatano, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59}, R1 (1999).
329: \bibitem{dhar} A. Dhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 3554 (2001).
330: \bibitem{grass-lei} P. Grassberger, W. Nadler, and L. Yang,
331: nlin.CD/0203019 (2002).
332: \bibitem{casati-prozen} G. Casati and T. Prozen, cond-mat/0203331 (2002).
333: \bibitem{dhar2} A. Dhar and D. Dhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 480 (1999).
334: \bibitem{lippi} A. Lippi and R. Livi, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 100}, 1147 (2000).
335: \bibitem{evans} D.J. Evans and G.P. Morriss, {\it Statistical Mechanics of
336: Nonequilibrium Liquids} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1990).
337: \bibitem{nanotubes} P.J.F. Harris, {\it Carbon Nanotubes and Related
338: Structures} (Cambridge University Press, 1999, 2001).
339: \bibitem{nano-sim} J. Che {\it et al.}, {\bf 11}, 65 (2000);
340: S. Berber {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4613 (2000);
341: M.A. Osman and D. Srivastava, Nanotechnology {\bf 12}, 21 (2001);
342: Q.R. Zheng {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 25}, 233 (2002).
343: \bibitem{nano-exp}
344: % J. Hone {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59}, R2514 (1999);
345: % K. Schwab {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 404}, 974 (2000);
346: L. Lu {\it et al.}, Rev. Sci. Instr. {\bf 72}, 2996 (2001);
347: P. Kim {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 215502 (2001).
348: \bibitem{maruyama} S. Maruyama, Physica B, in print (2002).
349: \bibitem{brenner} D. Brenner, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 9458 (1990).
350: \bibitem{leapfrog} S.D. Bond, B.J. Leinkuhler, and B.B. Laird,
351: J. Comput. Phys. {\bf 151}, 114 (1999).
352:
353: \end{thebibliography}
354:
355:
356: \end{document}
357: