4.7 Article

Can gas hydrate structures be described using classical simulations?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 132, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.3353953

关键词

lattice constants; Monte Carlo methods; phase diagrams; solid structure; specific heat; sublimation; water

资金

  1. DGI (Spain) [FIS2007-66079-C02-01, FIS2006-12117-C04-03]
  2. Comunidad Autonoma de Madrid [P2009/ESP-1691]
  3. Universidad Complutense de Madrid [910570]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantum path-integral simulations of the hydrate solid structures have been performed using the recently proposed TIP4PQ/2005 model. By also performing classical simulations using this model, the impact of the nuclear quantum effects on the hydrates is highlighted; nuclear quantum effects significantly modify the structure, densities, and energies of the hydrates, leading to the conclusion that nuclear quantum effects are important not only when studying the solid phases of water but also when studying the hydrates. To analyze the validity of a classical description of hydrates, a comparison of the results of the TIP4P/2005 model (optimized for classical simulations) with those of TIP4PQ/2005 (optimized for path-integral simulations) was undertaken. A classical description of hydrates is able to correctly predict the densities at temperatures above 150 K and the relative stabilities between the hydrates and ice I-h. The inclusion of nuclear quantum effects does not significantly modify the sequence of phases found in the phase diagram of water at negative pressures, namely, I-h -> sII -> sH. In fact the transition pressures are little affected by the inclusion of nuclear quantum effects; the phase diagram predictions for hydrates can be performed with reasonable accuracy using classical simulations. However, for a reliable calculation of the densities below 150 K, the sublimation energies, the constant pressure heat capacity, and the radial distribution functions, the incorporation of nuclear quantum effects is indeed required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据