ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/iceiPaper/iceiPaper.tex
Revision: 1458
Committed: Wed Sep 15 06:34:49 2004 UTC (19 years, 9 months ago) by chrisfen
Content type: application/x-tex
File size: 16894 byte(s)
Log Message:
Added a figure and started in on the conclusions

File Contents

# Content
1 %\documentclass[prb,aps,twocolumn,tabularx]{revtex4}
2 \documentclass[preprint,aps,endfloats]{revtex4}
3 %\documentclass[11pt]{article}
4 %\usepackage{endfloat}
5 \usepackage{amsmath}
6 \usepackage{epsf}
7 \usepackage{berkeley}
8 %\usepackage{setspace}
9 %\usepackage{tabularx}
10 \usepackage{graphicx}
11 %\usepackage[ref]{overcite}
12 %\pagestyle{plain}
13 %\pagenumbering{arabic}
14 %\oddsidemargin 0.0cm \evensidemargin 0.0cm
15 %\topmargin -21pt \headsep 10pt
16 %\textheight 9.0in \textwidth 6.5in
17 %\brokenpenalty=10000
18
19 %\renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional reference note
20
21 \begin{document}
22
23 \title{A Free Energy Study of Low Temperature and Anomolous Ice}
24
25 \author{Christopher J. Fennell and J. Daniel Gezelter{\thefootnote}
26 \footnote[1]{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail: gezelter@nd.edu}}
27
28 \address{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry\\ University of Notre Dame\\
29 Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
30
31 \date{\today}
32
33 %\maketitle
34 %\doublespacing
35
36 \begin{abstract}
37 \end{abstract}
38
39 \maketitle
40
41 \newpage
42
43 %\narrowtext
44
45 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46 % BODY OF TEXT
47 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48
49 \section{Introduction}
50
51 \section{Methods}
52
53 Canonical ensemble (NVT) molecular dynamics calculations were
54 performed using the OOPSE (Object-Oriented Parallel Simulation Engine)
55 molecular mechanics package. All molecules were treated as rigid
56 bodies, with orientational motion propogated using the symplectic DLM
57 integration method. Details about the implementation of these
58 techniques can be found in a recent publication.\cite{Meineke05}
59
60 Thermodynamic integration was utilized to calculate the free energy of
61 several ice crystals at 200 K using the TIP3P, TIP4P, TIP5P, SPC/E,
62 SSD/RF, and SSD/E water models. Liquid state free energies at 300 and
63 400 K for all of these water models were also determined using this
64 same technique, in order to determine melting points and generate
65 phase diagrams. All simulations were carried out at densities
66 resulting in a pressure of approximately 1 atm at their respective
67 temperatures.
68
69 A single thermodynamic integration involves a sequence of simulations
70 over which the system of interest is converted into a reference system
71 for which the free energy is known. This transformation path is then
72 integrated in order to determine the free energy difference between
73 the two states:
74 \begin{equation}
75 \begin{center}
76 \Delta A = \int_0^1\left\langle\frac{\partial V(\lambda
77 )}{\partial\lambda}\right\rangle_\lambda d\lambda,
78 \end{center}
79 \end{equation}
80 where $V$ is the interaction potential and $\lambda$ is the
81 transformation parameter. Simulations are distributed unevenly along
82 this path in order to sufficiently sample the regions of greatest
83 change in the potential. Typical integrations in this study consisted
84 of $\sim$25 simulations ranging from 300 ps (for the unaltered system)
85 to 75 ps (near the reference state) in length.
86
87 For the thermodynamic integration of molecular crystals, the Einstein
88 Crystal is chosen as the reference state that the system is converted
89 to over the course of the simulation. In an Einstein Crystal, the
90 molecules are harmonically restrained at their ideal lattice locations
91 and orientations. The partition function for a molecular crystal
92 restrained in this fashion has been evaluated, and the Helmholtz Free
93 Energy ({\it A}) is given by
94 \begin{eqnarray}
95 A = E_m\ -\ kT\ln \left (\frac{kT}{h\nu}\right )^3&-&kT\ln \left
96 [\pi^\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{8\pi^2I_\mathrm{A}kT}{h^2}\right
97 )^\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{8\pi^2I_\mathrm{B}kT}{h^2}\right
98 )^\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{8\pi^2I_\mathrm{C}kT}{h^2}\right
99 )^\frac{1}{2}\right ] \nonumber \\ &-& kT\ln \left [\frac{kT}{2(\pi
100 K_\omega K_\theta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\exp\left
101 (-\frac{kT}{2K_\theta}\right)\int_0^{\left (\frac{kT}{2K_\theta}\right
102 )^\frac{1}{2}}\exp(t^2)\mathrm{d}t\right ],
103 \label{ecFreeEnergy}
104 \end{eqnarray}
105 where $2\pi\nu = (K_\mathrm{v}/m)^{1/2}$.\cite{Baez95a} In equation
106 \ref{ecFreeEnergy}, $K_\mathrm{v}$, $K_\mathrm{\theta}$, and
107 $K_\mathrm{\omega}$ are the spring constants restraining translational
108 motion and deflection of and rotation around the principle axis of the
109 molecule respectively (Fig. \ref{waterSpring}), and $E_m$ is the
110 minimum potential energy of the ideal crystal. In the case of
111 molecular liquids, the ideal vapor is chosen as the target reference
112 state.
113 \begin{figure}
114 \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{rotSpring.eps}
115 \caption{Possible orientational motions for a restrained molecule.
116 $\theta$ angles correspond to displacement from the body-frame {\it
117 z}-axis, while $\omega$ angles correspond to rotation about the
118 body-frame {\it z}-axis. $K_\theta$ and $K_\omega$ are spring
119 constants for the harmonic springs restraining motion in the $\theta$
120 and $\omega$ directions.}
121 \label{waterSpring}
122 \end{figure}
123
124 Charge, dipole, and Lennard-Jones interactions were modified by a
125 cubic switching between 100\% and 85\% of the cutoff value (9 \AA ). By
126 applying this function, these interactions are smoothly truncated,
127 thereby avoiding poor energy conserving dynamics resulting from
128 harsher truncation schemes. The effect of a long-range correction was
129 also investigated on select model systems in a variety of manners. For
130 the SSD/RF model, a reaction field with a fixed dielectric constant of
131 80 was applied in all simulations.\cite{Onsager36} For a series of the
132 least computationally expensive models (SSD/E, SSD/RF, and TIP3P),
133 simulations were performed with longer cutoffs of 12 and 15 \AA\ to
134 compare with the 9 \AA\ cutoff results. Finally, results from the use
135 of an Ewald summation were estimated for TIP3P and SPC/E by performing
136 calculations with Particle-Mesh Ewald (PME) in the TINKER molecular
137 mechanics software package. TINKER was chosen because it can also
138 propogate the motion of rigid-bodies, and provides the most direct
139 comparison to the results from OOPSE. The calculated energy difference
140 in the presence and absence of PME was applied to the previous results
141 in order to predict changes in the free energy landscape.
142
143 \section{Results and discussion}
144
145 The free energy of proton ordered Ice-{\it i} was calculated and
146 compared with the free energies of proton ordered variants of the
147 experimentally observed low-density ice polymorphs, $I_h$ and $I_c$,
148 as well as the higher density ice B, observed by B\`{a}ez and Clancy
149 and thought to be the minimum free energy structure for the SPC/E
150 model at ambient conditions (Table \ref{freeEnergy}).\cite{Baez95b}
151 Ice XI, the experimentally observed proton ordered variant of ice
152 $I_h$, was investigated initially, but it was found not to be as
153 stable as antiferroelectric variants of proton ordered or even proton
154 disordered ice$I_h$.\cite{Davidson84} The proton ordered variant of
155 ice $I_h$ used here is a simple antiferroelectric version that has an
156 8 molecule unit cell. The crystals contained 648 or 1728 molecules for
157 ice B, 1024 or 1280 molecules for ice $I_h$, 1000 molecules for ice
158 $I_c$, or 1024 molecules for Ice-{\it i}. The larger crystal sizes
159 were necessary for simulations involving larger cutoff values.
160
161 \begin{table*}
162 \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
163 \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\thempfootnote}
164 \begin{center}
165 \caption{Calculated free energies for several ice polymorphs with a
166 variety of common water models. All calculations used a cutoff radius
167 of 9 \AA\ and were performed at 200 K and $\sim$1 atm. Units are
168 kcal/mol. *Ice $I_c$ is unstable at 200 K using SSD/RF.}
169 \begin{tabular}{ l c c c c }
170 \hline \\[-7mm]
171 \ \quad \ Water Model\ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ $I_h$ \ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ $I_c$ \ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ B \ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ Ice-{\it i} \ \quad \ \\
172 \hline \\[-3mm]
173 \ \quad \ TIP3P & \ \quad \ -11.41 & \ \quad \ -11.23 & \ \quad \ -11.82 & \quad -12.30\\
174 \ \quad \ TIP4P & \ \quad \ -11.84 & \ \quad \ -12.04 & \ \quad \ -12.08 & \quad -12.33\\
175 \ \quad \ TIP5P & \ \quad \ -11.85 & \ \quad \ -11.86 & \ \quad \ -11.96 & \quad -12.29\\
176 \ \quad \ SPC/E & \ \quad \ -12.67 & \ \quad \ -12.96 & \ \quad \ -13.25 & \quad -13.55\\
177 \ \quad \ SSD/E & \ \quad \ -11.27 & \ \quad \ -11.19 & \ \quad \ -12.09 & \quad -12.54\\
178 \ \quad \ SSD/RF & \ \quad \ -11.51 & \ \quad \ NA* & \ \quad \ -12.08 & \quad -12.29\\
179 \end{tabular}
180 \label{freeEnergy}
181 \end{center}
182 \end{minipage}
183 \end{table*}
184
185 The free energy values computed for the studied polymorphs indicate
186 that Ice-{\it i} is the most stable state for all of the common water
187 models studied. With the free energy at these state points, the
188 temperature and pressure dependence of the free energy was used to
189 project to other state points and build phase diagrams. Figures
190 \ref{tp3phasedia} and \ref{ssdrfphasedia} are example diagrams built
191 from the free energy results. All other models have similar structure,
192 only the crossing points between these phases exist at different
193 temperatures and pressures. It is interesting to note that ice $I$
194 does not exist in either cubic or hexagonal form in any of the phase
195 diagrams for any of the models. For purposes of this study, ice B is
196 representative of the dense ice polymorphs. A recent study by Sanz
197 {\it et al.} goes into detail on the phase diagrams for SPC/E and
198 TIP4P in the high pressure regime.\cite{Sanz04}
199 \begin{figure}
200 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{tp3PhaseDia.eps}
201 \caption{Phase diagram for the TIP3P water model in the low pressure
202 regime. The displayed $T_m$ and $T_b$ values are good predictions of
203 the experimental values; however, the solid phases shown are not the
204 experimentally observed forms. Both cubic and hexagonal ice $I$ are
205 higher in energy and don't appear in the phase diagram.}
206 \label{tp3phasedia}
207 \end{figure}
208 \begin{figure}
209 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssdrfPhaseDia.eps}
210 \caption{Phase diagram for the SSD/RF water model in the low pressure
211 regime. Calculations producing these results were done under an
212 applied reaction field. It is interesting to note that this
213 computationally efficient model (over 3 times more efficient than
214 TIP3P) exhibits phase behavior similar to the less computationally
215 conservative charge based models.}
216 \label{ssdrfphasedia}
217 \end{figure}
218
219 \begin{table*}
220 \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
221 \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\thempfootnote}
222 \begin{center}
223 \caption{Melting ($T_m$), boiling ($T_b$), and sublimation ($T_s$)
224 temperatures of several common water models compared with experiment.}
225 \begin{tabular}{ l c c c c c c c }
226 \hline \\[-7mm]
227 \ \ Equilibria Point\ \ & \ \ \ \ \ TIP3P \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ TIP4P \ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ TIP5P \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ SPC/E \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ SSD/E \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ SSD/RF \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ Exp. \ \ \\
228 \hline \\[-3mm]
229 \ \ $T_m$ (K) & \ \ 269 & \ \ 265 & \ \ 271 & 297 & \ \ - & \ \ 278 & \ \ 273\\
230 \ \ $T_b$ (K) & \ \ 357 & \ \ 354 & \ \ 337 & 396 & \ \ - & \ \ 349 & \ \ 373\\
231 \ \ $T_s$ (K) & \ \ - & \ \ - & \ \ - & - & \ \ 355 & \ \ - & \ \ -\\
232 \end{tabular}
233 \label{meltandboil}
234 \end{center}
235 \end{minipage}
236 \end{table*}
237
238 Table \ref{meltandboil} lists the melting and boiling temperatures
239 calculated from this work. Surprisingly, most of these models have
240 melting points that compare quite favorably with experiment. The
241 unfortunate aspect of this result is that this phase change occurs
242 between Ice-{\it i} and the liquid state rather than ice $I_h$ and the
243 liquid state. These results are actually not contrary to previous
244 studies in the literature. Earlier free energy studies of ice $I$
245 using TIP4P predict a $T_m$ ranging from 214 to 238 K (differences
246 being attributed to choice of interaction truncation and different
247 ordered and disordered molecular arrangements). If the presence of ice
248 B and Ice-{\it i} were omitted, a $T_m$ value around 210 K would be
249 predicted from this work. However, the $T_m$ from Ice-{\it i} is
250 calculated at 265 K, significantly higher in temperature than the
251 previous studies. Also of interest in these results is that SSD/E does
252 not exhibit a melting point at 1 atm, but it shows a sublimation point
253 at 355 K. This is due to the significant stability of Ice-{\it i} over
254 all other polymorphs for this particular model under these
255 conditions. While troubling, this behavior turned out to be
256 advantagious in that it facilitated the spontaneous crystallization of
257 Ice-{\it i}. These observations provide a warning that simulations of
258 SSD/E as a ``liquid'' near 300 K are actually metastable and run the
259 risk of spontaneous crystallization. However, this risk changes when
260 applying a longer cutoff.
261
262 \begin{figure}
263 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{cutoffChange.eps}
264 \caption{Free energy as a function of cutoff radius for (A) SSD/E, (B)
265 TIP3P, and (C) SSD/RF. Data points omitted include SSD/E: $I_c$ 12
266 \AA\, TIP3P: $I_c$ 12 \AA\ and B 12 \AA\, and SSD/RF: $I_c$ 9
267 \AA\. These crystals are unstable at 200 K and rapidly convert into a
268 liquid. The connecting lines are qualitative visual aid.}
269 \label{incCutoff}
270 \end{figure}
271
272 Increasing the cutoff radius in simulations of the more
273 computationally efficient water models was done in order to evaluate
274 the trend in free energy values when moving to systems that do not
275 involve potential truncation. As seen in Fig. \ref{incCutoff}, the
276 free energy of all the ice polymorphs show a substantial dependence on
277 cutoff radius. In general, there is a narrowing of the free energy
278 differences while moving to greater cutoff radius. This trend is much
279 more subtle in the case of SSD/RF, indicating that the free energies
280 calculated with a reaction field present provide a more accurate
281 picture of the free energy landscape in the absence of potential
282 truncation.
283
284 To further study the changes resulting to the inclusion of a
285 long-range interaction correction, the effect of an Ewald summation
286 was estimated by applying the potential energy difference do to its
287 inclusion in systems in the presence and absence of the
288 correction. This was accomplished by calculation of the potential
289 energy of identical crystals with and without PME using TINKER. The
290 free energies for the investigated polymorphs using the TIP3P and
291 SPC/E water models are shown in Table \ref{pmeShift}. TIP4P and TIP5P
292 are not fully supported in TINKER, so the results for these models
293 could not be estimated. The same trend pointed out through increase of
294 cutoff radius is observed in these results. Ice-{\it i} is the
295 preferred polymorph at ambient conditions for both the TIP3P and SPC/E
296 water models; however, there is a narrowing of the free energy
297 differences between the various solid forms. In the case of SPC/E this
298 narrowing is significant enough that it becomes less clear cut that
299 Ice-{\it i} is the most stable polymorph, and is possibly metastable
300 with respect to ice B and possibly ice $I_c$. However, these results
301 do not significantly alter the finding that the Ice-{\it i} polymorph
302 is a stable crystal structure that should be considered when studying
303 the phase behavior of water models.
304
305 \begin{table*}
306 \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
307 \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\thempfootnote}
308 \begin{center}
309 \caption{The free energy of the studied ice polymorphs after applying
310 the energy difference attributed to the inclusion of the PME
311 long-range interaction correction. Units are kcal/mol.}
312 \begin{tabular}{ l c c c c }
313 \hline \\[-7mm]
314 \ \ Water Model \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ $I_h$ \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ $I_c$ \ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ B \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ Ice-{\it i} \ \ \\
315 \hline \\[-3mm]
316 \ \ TIP3P & \ \ -11.53 & \ \ -11.24 & \ \ -11.51 & \ \ -11.67\\
317 \ \ SPC/E & \ \ -12.77 & \ \ -12.92 & \ \ -12.96 & \ \ -13.02\\
318 \end{tabular}
319 \label{pmeShift}
320 \end{center}
321 \end{minipage}
322 \end{table*}
323
324 \section{Conclusions}
325
326 The free energy for proton ordered variants of hexagonal and cubic ice
327 $I$, ice B, and recently discovered Ice-{\it i} where calculated under
328 standard conditions for several common water models via thermodynamic
329 integration. All the water models studied show Ice-{\it i} to be the
330 minimum free energy crystal structure in the with a 9 \AA\ switching
331 function cutoff. Calculated melting and boiling points show
332 surprisingly good agreement with the experimental values; however, the
333 solid phase at 1 atm is Ice-{\it i}, not ice $I_h$. The effect of
334 interaction truncation was investigated through variation of the
335 cutoff radius, use of a reaction field parameterized model, and
336 estimation of the results in the presence of the Ewald summation
337 correction. Interaction truncation has a significant effect on the
338 computed free energy values, but Ice-{\it i} is still observed to be a
339 relavent ice polymorph in simulation studies.
340
341 \section{Acknowledgments}
342 Support for this project was provided by the National Science
343 Foundation under grant CHE-0134881. Computation time was provided by
344 the Notre Dame High Performance Computing Cluster and the Notre Dame
345 Bunch-of-Boxes (B.o.B) computer cluster (NSF grant DMR-0079647).
346
347 \newpage
348
349 \bibliographystyle{jcp}
350 \bibliography{iceiPaper}
351
352
353 \end{document}