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

Comparing trunk/iceiPaper/iceiPaper.tex (file contents):
Revision 1453 by chrisfen, Mon Sep 13 18:39:53 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 1456 by chrisfen, Tue Sep 14 21:55:24 2004 UTC

# Line 50 | Line 50 | Notre Dame, Indiana 46556}
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 + For the thermodynamic integration of molecular crystals, the Einstein
70 + Crystal is chosen as the reference state that the system is converted
71 + to over the course of the simulation. In an Einstein Crystal, the
72 + molecules are harmonically restrained at their ideal lattice locations
73 + and orientations. The partition function for a molecular crystal
74 + restrained in this fashion has been evaluated, and the Helmholtz Free
75 + Energy ({\it A}) is given by
76 + \begin{eqnarray}
77 + A = E_m\ -\ kT\ln \left (\frac{kT}{h\nu}\right )^3&-&kT\ln \left
78 + [\pi^\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{8\pi^2I_\mathrm{A}kT}{h^2}\right
79 + )^\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{8\pi^2I_\mathrm{B}kT}{h^2}\right
80 + )^\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{8\pi^2I_\mathrm{C}kT}{h^2}\right
81 + )^\frac{1}{2}\right ] \nonumber \\ &-& kT\ln \left [\frac{kT}{2(\pi
82 + K_\omega K_\theta)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\exp\left
83 + (-\frac{kT}{2K_\theta}\right)\int_0^{\left (\frac{kT}{2K_\theta}\right
84 + )^\frac{1}{2}}\exp(t^2)\mathrm{d}t\right ],
85 + \label{ecFreeEnergy}
86 + \end{eqnarray}
87 + where $2\pi\nu = (K_\mathrm{v}/m)^{1/2}$.\cite{Baez95a} In equation
88 + \ref{ecFreeEnergy}, $K_\mathrm{v}$, $K_\mathrm{\theta}$, and
89 + $K_\mathrm{\omega}$ are the spring constants restraining translational
90 + motion and deflection of and rotation around the principle axis of the
91 + molecule respectively (Fig. \ref{waterSpring}), and $E_m$ is the
92 + minimum potential energy of the ideal crystal. In the case of
93 + molecular liquids, the ideal vapor is chosen as the target reference
94 + state.
95 + \begin{figure}
96 + \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{rotSpring.eps}
97 + \caption{Possible orientational motions for a restrained molecule.
98 + $\theta$ angles correspond to displacement from the body-frame {\it
99 + z}-axis, while $\omega$ angles correspond to rotation about the
100 + body-frame {\it z}-axis. $K_\theta$ and $K_\omega$ are spring
101 + constants for the harmonic springs restraining motion in the $\theta$
102 + and $\omega$ directions.}
103 + \label{waterSpring}
104 + \end{figure}
105 +
106 + Charge, dipole, and Lennard-Jones interactions were modified by a
107 + cubic switching between 100\% and 85\% of the cutoff value (9 \AA ). By
108 + applying this function, these interactions are smoothly truncated,
109 + thereby avoiding poor energy conserving dynamics resulting from
110 + harsher truncation schemes. The effect of a long-range correction was
111 + also investigated on select model systems in a variety of manners. For
112 + the SSD/RF model, a reaction field with a fixed dielectric constant of
113 + 80 was applied in all simulations.\cite{Onsager36} For a series of the
114 + least computationally expensive models (SSD/E, SSD/RF, and TIP3P),
115 + simulations were performed with longer cutoffs of 12 and 15 \AA\ to
116 + compare with the 9 \AA\ cutoff results. Finally, results from the use
117 + of an Ewald summation were estimated for TIP3P and SPC/E by performing
118 + calculations with Particle-Mesh Ewald (PME) in the TINKER molecular
119 + mechanics software package. TINKER was chosen because it can also
120 + propogate the motion of rigid-bodies, and provides the most direct
121 + comparison to the results from OOPSE. The calculated energy difference
122 + in the presence and absence of PME was applied to the previous results
123 + in order to predict changes in the free energy landscape.
124 +
125   \section{Results and discussion}
126  
127 + The free energy of proton ordered Ice-{\it i} was calculated and
128 + compared with the free energies of proton ordered variants of the
129 + experimentally observed low-density ice polymorphs, $I_h$ and $I_c$,
130 + as well as the higher density ice B, observed by B\`{a}ez and Clancy
131 + and thought to be the minimum free energy structure for the SPC/E
132 + model at ambient conditions (Table \ref{freeEnergy}).\cite{Baez95b}
133 + Ice XI, the experimentally observed proton ordered variant of ice
134 + $I_h$, was investigated initially, but it was found not to be as
135 + stable as antiferroelectric variants of proton ordered or even proton
136 + disordered ice$I_h$.\cite{Davidson84} The proton ordered variant of
137 + ice $I_h$ used here is a simple antiferroelectric version that has an
138 + 8 molecule unit cell. The crystals contained 648 or 1728 molecules for
139 + ice B, 1024 or 1280 molecules for ice $I_h$, 1000 molecules for ice
140 + $I_c$, or 1024 molecules for Ice-{\it i}. The larger crystal sizes
141 + were necessary for simulations involving larger cutoff values.
142 +
143 + \begin{table*}
144 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
145 + \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\thempfootnote}
146 + \begin{center}
147 + \caption{Calculated free energies for several ice polymorphs with a
148 + variety of common water models. All calculations used a cutoff radius
149 + of 9 \AA\ and were performed at 200 K and $\sim$1 atm. Units are
150 + kcal/mol. *Ice $I_c$ is unstable at 200 K using SSD/RF.}
151 + \begin{tabular}{ l  c  c  c  c }
152 + \hline \\[-7mm]
153 + \ \quad \ Water Model\ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ $I_h$ \ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ $I_c$ \ \  & \ \quad \ \ \ \ B \ \  & \ \quad \ \ \ Ice-{\it i} \ \quad \ \\
154 + \hline \\[-3mm]
155 + \ \quad \ TIP3P  & \ \quad \ -11.41 & \ \quad \ -11.23 & \ \quad \ -11.82 & \quad -12.30\\
156 + \ \quad \ TIP4P  & \ \quad \ -11.84 & \ \quad \ -12.04 & \ \quad \ -12.08 & \quad -12.33\\
157 + \ \quad \ TIP5P  & \ \quad \ -11.85 & \ \quad \ -11.86 & \ \quad \ -11.96 & \quad -12.29\\
158 + \ \quad \ SPC/E  & \ \quad \ -12.67 & \ \quad \ -12.96 & \ \quad \ -13.25 & \quad -13.55\\
159 + \ \quad \ SSD/E  & \ \quad \ -11.27 & \ \quad \ -11.19 & \ \quad \ -12.09 & \quad -12.54\\
160 + \ \quad \ SSD/RF & \ \quad \ -11.51 & \ \quad \ NA* & \ \quad \ -12.08 & \quad -12.29\\
161 + \end{tabular}
162 + \label{freeEnergy}
163 + \end{center}
164 + \end{minipage}
165 + \end{table*}
166 +
167 + The free energy values computed for the studied polymorphs indicate
168 + that Ice-{\it i} is the most stable state for all of the common water
169 + models studied. With the free energy at these state points, the
170 + temperature and pressure dependence of the free energy was used to
171 + project to other state points and build phase diagrams. Figures
172 + \ref{tp3phasedia} and \ref{ssdrfphasedia} are example diagrams built
173 + from the free energy results. All other models have similar structure,
174 + only the crossing points between these phases exist at different
175 + temperatures and pressures. It is interesting to note that ice $I$
176 + does not exist in either cubic or hexagonal form in any of the phase
177 + diagrams for any of the models. For purposes of this study, ice B is
178 + representative of the dense ice polymorphs. A recent study by Sanz
179 + {\it et al.} goes into detail on the phase diagrams for SPC/E and
180 + TIP4P in the high pressure regime.\cite{Sanz04}
181 + \begin{figure}
182 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{tp3PhaseDia.eps}
183 + \caption{Phase diagram for the TIP3P water model in the low pressure
184 + regime. The displayed $T_m$ and $T_b$ values are good predictions of
185 + the experimental values; however, the solid phases shown are not the
186 + experimentally observed forms. Both cubic and hexagonal ice $I$ are
187 + higher in energy and don't appear in the phase diagram.}
188 + \label{tp3phasedia}
189 + \end{figure}
190 + \begin{figure}
191 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssdrfPhaseDia.eps}
192 + \caption{Phase diagram for the SSD/RF water model in the low pressure
193 + regime. Calculations producing these results were done under an
194 + applied reaction field. It is interesting to note that this
195 + computationally efficient model (over 3 times more efficient than
196 + TIP3P) exhibits phase behavior similar to the less computationally
197 + conservative charge based models.}
198 + \label{ssdrfphasedia}
199 + \end{figure}
200 +
201 + \begin{table*}
202 + \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
203 + \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\thempfootnote}
204 + \begin{center}
205 + \caption{Melting ($T_m$), boiling ($T_b$), and sublimation ($T_s$)
206 + temperatures of several common water models compared with experiment.}
207 + \begin{tabular}{ l  c  c  c  c  c  c  c }
208 + \hline \\[-7mm]
209 + \ \ Equilibria Point\ \ & \ \ \ \ \ TIP3P \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ TIP4P \ \ & \ \quad \ \ \ \ TIP5P \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ SPC/E \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ SSD/E \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ SSD/RF \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ Exp. \ \ \\
210 + \hline \\[-3mm]
211 + \ \ $T_m$ (K)  & \ \ 269 & \ \ 265 & \ \ 271 &  297 & \ \ - & \ \ 278 & \ \ 273\\
212 + \ \ $T_b$ (K)  & \ \ 357 & \ \ 354 & \ \ 337 &  396 & \ \ - & \ \ 349 & \ \ 373\\
213 + \ \ $T_s$ (K)  & \ \ - & \ \ - & \ \ - &  - & \ \ 355 & \ \ - & \ \ -\\
214 + \end{tabular}
215 + \label{meltandboil}
216 + \end{center}
217 + \end{minipage}
218 + \end{table*}
219 +
220 + Table \ref{meltandboil} lists the melting and boiling temperatures
221 + calculated from this work. Surprisingly, most of these models have
222 + melting points that compare quite favorably with experiment. The
223 + unfortunate aspect of this result is that this phase change occurs
224 + between Ice-{\it i} and the liquid state rather than ice $I_h$ and the
225 + liquid state. These results are actually not contrary to previous
226 + studies in the literature. Earlier free energy studies of ice $I$
227 + using TIP4P predict a $T_m$ ranging from 214 to 238 K (differences
228 + being attributed to choice of interaction truncation and different
229 + ordered and disordered molecular arrangements). If the presence of ice
230 + B and Ice-{\it i} were omitted, a $T_m$ value around 210 K would be
231 + predicted from this work. However, the $T_m$ from Ice-{\it i} is
232 + calculated at 265 K, significantly higher in temperature than the
233 + previous studies. Also of interest in these results is that SSD/E does
234 + not exhibit a melting point at 1 atm, but it shows a sublimation point
235 + at 355 K. This is due to the significant stability of Ice-{\it i} over
236 + all other polymorphs for this particular model under these
237 + conditions. While troubling, this behavior turned out to be
238 + advantagious in that it facilitated the spontaneous crystallization of
239 + Ice-{\it i}. These observations provide a warning that simulations of
240 + SSD/E as a ``liquid'' near 300 K are actually metastable and run the
241 + risk of spontaneous crystallization. However, this risk changes when
242 + applying a longer cutoff.
243 +
244 +
245 +
246   \section{Conclusions}
247  
248   \section{Acknowledgments}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines