MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4412120481 · doi:10.5194/epsc-dps2025-748

Atomic Scale Modelling of Icy Surfaces: A Best Practice for Validating Interatomic Potentials and Ice Substrates in Extreme Environments

2025· preprint· en· W4412120481 sur OpenAlexaff
Vikentiy Pashuk, Liam S. Morrissey, Ivan Saika‐Voivod, Rocky Taylor

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
Thématiquenanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAtomic unitsScale (ratio)AstrobiologyChemical physicsNanotechnologyMaterials sciencePhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Several current and upcoming missions will be focusing on understanding the evolution of icy surfaces and their interaction with the exosphere. For example, Europa Clipper and JUICE aim to study the icy Moons of Jupiter [1], and ongoing work on the Moon and Mercury has identified the icy permanently shadowed regions as being of scientific and operational importance. However, while significant computational and laboratory research has been conducted on volatile interactions with silicate surfaces, there is comparatively less work on icy surfaces. Understanding the interaction of icy surfaces with the space environment on these bodies is necessary for interpreting much of the upcoming observation data. For example, binding energies and diffusion characteristics of volatiles on icy surfaces can be incorporated into exospheric models to better understand the exosphere formation. While experiments are costly and time-consuming, molecular dynamics (MD) offers a theoretical alternative by simulating the behavior of atoms in extreme environments. It has proven valuable in understanding surface diffusion and surface binding energies of key volatiles on silicate surfaces [2,3]. These approaches commonly use reactive interatomic potentials (ReaxFF) that are capable of modelling dynamic bond breaking and reformation found during chemical reactions. However, while ReaxFF potentials have been well studied and validated for silicates they remain relatively untested for the conditions and compositions relevant to icy bodies. A validation of available interatomic potentials (IPs) for ice is needed before we can apply these MD-methods to exosphere modelling.Here, we aim to validate ReaxFF for icy surfaces by comparing the mechanical properties of ice to a standard, and well validated, water-based potential called TIP4P/Ice (that cannot model chemical reactions) and available experimental results to help build a computational and methodological framework for future surface studies. We perform MD simulations of crystalline and amorphous water-ice and focus on validating against diffusion, Youngs Modulus (EY), isothermal compressibility (kT), and density (ρ).Methodology: We have studied crystalline and amorphous ice at 25 K, 100 K, and 264 K, the first two temperatures due to the relevance in shadowed craters on the Moon and Mercury and the latter for comparison against experiment. Crystalline proton disordered, non-polar, 1h ice was first created using GenIce. Amorphous ice was then made by melting the crystalline structure at 360 K and then equilibrating at 264 K while for lower temperatures for the amorphous ice was equilibrated at 245 K before quenching to 25 K and 100 K with rates ranging from 80 ns to 80 ps. Following the work by Baran et al. [4], we calculated the diffusion of Oxygen in amorphous ice as a function of temperature for 40 ns in a constant volume and temperature ensemble. For the EY the crystalline and amorphous substrates we produced stress-strain curves using a minimum strain rate [5]. Finally, the isothermal compressibility was computed from volume variations.Results: First, we demonstrate a notable methodological advancement by validating the ability to convert equilibrated ice structures from TIP4P/Ice to ReaxFF formats. This allows researchers to leverage the faster TIP4P/Ice for equilibration of the surface and then switch to the more computationally intensive ReaxFF potential for the chemically reactive simulations that will be found during volatile interactions.Due to limited experimental data, the EY of the two IPs was only compared to experimental data at 264 K [6]. For both IPs there was strong agreement when compared to experiment, a 5.2% and 5.6% difference for TIP4P/Ice and ReaxFF potentials respectively. As temperature increases from 25 K to 264 K, we found that the difference in EY between the two potentials decreased from 23% to 0.3%, suggesting that at temperatures below melting ReaxFF is well optimized. When comparing amorphous to crystalline ice, we found that the EY is lower by ~50% for ReaxFF for both 25 K and 100 K cases whereas for TIP4P/Ice the EY decreases by 28% and 42% for 25 and 100 K respectively. As expected at 264 K the sample is melted and has a Young Modulus of zero. The EY values for amorphous ice were found to increase with increasing the quenching time. The third ReaxFF potential showed similar trends but was more diffusive translating to a higher melting point and lower EY.The calculated diffusion values for both tested IPs compared well to previous simulations that used TIP4P/Ice [4]. Isothermal compressibility for both potentials is consistent with each other but is underestimated compared to previous studies [7]. Density falls within expected ranges for both crystalline, 0.88 < ρ < 0.94, and amorphous ice, 1.05 < ρ < 1.16.Conclusion: We tested ReaxFF potentials for key properties of icy surfaces and suggest a new validation methodological approach for future simulations. Hence, we provided a clear framework that can be reliably applied by other researchers to assess new and emerging potentials relevant to space applications. This advancement not only ensures accurate simulation of mechanical behavior of ice but also opens pathways for further exploration into icy surface chemistry. This study lays the groundwork for accelerating our understand of surface exosphere connections on icy bodies.[1] Magnanini et al. (2024) Astronomy & Astrophysics 687 A132. [2] Morrissey, et al. (2022) Icarus, vol. 379, article no. 114979. [3] Morrissey, et al. (2022) The Astrophysical Jounral Letters 925. [4] Baran et al (2023) J. Chem. Phys. 158 (6): 064503. [5] Santos-Flórez, et al. (2018) The Journal of Chemical Physics 149.16. [6] Schulson. (1999) Jom 51 21-27. [7] Neumeier. (2018) J. Phys. Chem. 47 (3).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,089
Tête enseignante GPT0,284
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetnanoparticles nucleation surface interactionsTravaux en français237 207