Water site headerMasthead Island, Great Barrier Reef Print-me keygo to Water Visitor Book contributions
Go to my page Water Structure and Science
Computational model of a small periodic box containing 216 water molecules

Water Models

Water molecular models are computational techniques that have been developed in order to help discover the structure of water.


V Parameterization of the water models

V Water model descriptions
V Water model properties
V Aqueous solutions


'with four parameters I can fit an elephant,

and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk'

Fermi as stated in [2438]    

'although the model can be very accurate in many respects,

it should not be confused with the real liquid'

Nilsson, Schlesinger and Pettersson [2569]   


For reviews of the development of water models, see [275,2537], for a review of the development of analytical potential energy functions, see [2641], for a review of their use in supercritical water see [433], for an appraisal of their accomplishments see [400], for a comparison of some important non-polarizable models see [1478], and for a review of progress in ab initio methods see [1611].

Water models parameterization

Water models are useful given the basis that if the (known but hypothetical) model (that is, computer water) can successfully predict the physical properties of liquid water then the (unknown) structure of liquid water is determined. There is a trade off between the computational complexity of the model and the size, and complexity, of the system that can be computed in a realistic time period. Even as computing power increases considerably year on year, the limits imposed by the system size, model complexity and time restrictions are tested. Simple models can be used in large systems (>10,000 molecules) and/or for long simulation periods (>10 ns), whereas complex but more accurate models (particularly ab initio methods) may only be used for relatively small systems (100-1000) and simulation time periods (~ ps). The small scale and short periods of such computations may lead to the, often ignored, possibility of artifacts. Generally, they cannot appreciate any real similar or larger (longer) scale events and should only be used to predict such events with great caution. At present, no water model can be used in simulations involving 100 nm cubes of water or for simulation periods of milliseconds or more. In spite of the great investment in time and effort, extrapolated predictions from molecular modeling should not be treated as equal to, or superior to, experimental evidence.


Models involve orienting electrostatic effects and Lennard-Jones sites that may or may not coincide with one or more of the charged sites. f The Lennard-Jones interaction accounts for the size of the molecules. It is repulsive at short distances, a ensuring that the structure does not completely collapse due to the electrostatic interactions. At intermediate distances it is significantly attractive but non-directional and competes with the directional attractive electrostatic interactions. This competition ensures a tension between an expanded tetrahedral network and a collapsed non directional one (for example, similar to that found in liquid noble gases). Generally each model is developed to fit well with one particular physical structure or parameter (for example, the density anomaly, radial distribution function or the critical parameters) and it comes as no surprise when a model developed to fit certain parameters gives good compliance with these same parameters (for example, see [984]). It is also the case that, in spite of the heavy computational investment in the calculations, the final agreement (or otherwise) with experimental data is often 'by eye' and not statistically tested or checked for parametric sensitivity. Also, tests for 'fit' often seem to be completed with publication in mind rather than rigor; thus many papers use the radial distribution fit with diffraction data as their 'gold standard' in spite of the major fitted peaks (where the agreement looks so impressive 'by eye') being derived from the tetrahedral nature of water that is built into every model and overpowering any disagreement in the fine detail. In particular, the O···O radial distribution function seems to be a poor discriminator between widely differently performing models [1224]. Indeed, current x-ray and neutron diffraction data are incapable of distinguishing between popular models [1579, 1624, 1667, 1757, 2090]. Also unfortunately, the purity, isotopic mix and perhaps even the ortho/para spin state present in real water may cause difficulty over choice of the value of the physical parameter [400], as models only use one isotopic form and ignore the spin state and the presence of other entities such as ions. Also ignored, in all the models described here, is the ease of proton hopping between water molecules (~ps), and the positive effect that this must have on cluster stability and formation.


There is still disagreement over which value of some physical parameters to use, for example, for the dipole moment. Whether model results agree with other physical properties of water then acts as proof (or otherwise) of their utility. A 15-parameter model based on water monomer and dimer properties shows good agreement with the liquid-vapor coexistence line (clearly influenced by monomer-dimer properties), the critical point and the surface tension-temperature curve [2334], but important dynamic properties remain to be determined [2333]. However, it does show surprisingly good agreement with the unrelated temperature of maximum density. By and large, the more fitting parameters that are required by the model (and some require over 50), the better the fit. Some models show a lack of robustness due to their sensitivity to the precise model parameters [206], the system size or the calculation method [619, 649]. A study of sensitivity of water's behavior with respect to changes in the parameters using the TIP4P model potential showed that σ, followed by the O-H bond length, had the major effects on the density, enthalpy of vaporization and radial distribution function fits [494]. A separate sensitivity analysis showed that the thermodynamic properties of water models were most sensitive to the van der Waals repulsive, the short range Coulomb and the polarization components of the potential [1042].


It can be noted that a number of these models use water molecules with a wider (more tetrahedral) H-O-H angle and longer H-O bond length than those expected of gaseous or liquid water and indicative of the importance of including parameters giving strong hydrogen bonding [2339]. Water molecules in liquid water are all non-equivalent (differing in their molecular orbitals, their precise geometry and molecular vibrations; for an extreme case see the water dimer) due to their hydrogen bonding status, which is influenced by the arrangement of the surrounding water molecules. Some models are polarizable [867] to make some allowance for this, c, d whereas other simpler models try to reproduce 'average' structures. [Back to Top to top of page]


Water models

Water model descriptions


A recent review listed 46 distinct models [400], so indirectly indicating their lack of success in quantitatively reproducing the properties of real water. They may, however, offer useful insight into water's behavior.


Some of the more successful simple models are opposite with their parameters given below. Model types a, b and c are all planar whereas type d is almost tetrahedral. The mid-point site (M) in c and the lone pair sites (L) in d are labeled q2.

Parameters for some water molecular models



σ Å 6 ε kJ mol-1 6 l1 Å l2 Å q1 (e) q2 (e) θ° φ°
 SSD [511]
-8 3.016 15.319 - - - - 109.47 109.47
 SPC [94]
a 3.166 0.650 1.0000 - +0.410 -0.8200 109.47 -
 SPC/E [3]
a 3.166 0.650 1.0000 - +0.4238 -0.8476 109.47 -
 SPC/HW (D2O) [220]
a 3.166 0.650 1.0000 - +0.4350 -0.8700 109.47 -
 SPC/Fw 2 [994]
a 3.166 0.650 1.0120 - +0.410 -0.8200 113.24 -
 TIP3P [180]
a 3.15061 0.6364 0.9572 - +0.4170 -0.8340 104.52 -
 TIP3P/Fw2 [994]
a 3.1506 0.6368 0.9600 - +0.4170 -0.8340 104.5 -
 iAMOEBA2 [2031]
a 3.6453 0.8235 0.9584 - +0.29701 -0.59402 106.48 -
 uAMOEBA2 [2401]
a19 3.7553 0.5945 0.9499 - - 19 105.95 -
a15 3.140 0.753 0.9614 - +0.6064 -1.2128 104.067 -
 PPC 1, 2 [3]
b 3.23400 0.6000 0.9430 0.06 +0.5170 -1.0340 106.00 127.00
 TIP4P [180]
c 3.15365 0.6480 0.9572 0.15 +0.5200 -1.0400 104.52 52.26
 TIP4P-Ew [649]
c 3.16435 0.680946 0.9572 0.125 +0.52422 -1.04844 104.52 52.26
 TIP4P-FQ [197]
c 3.15365 0.6480 0.9572 0.15 +0.631 -1.261 104.52 52.26
 TIP4P/Ice [838]
c 3.1668 0.8822 0.9572 0.1577 +0.5897 -1.1794 104.52 52.26
 TIP4P/2005 [984]
c 3.1589 0.7749 0.9572 0.1546 +0.5564 -1.1128 104.52 52.26
 TIP4P/2005f [1765]
c 3.1644 0.7749 0.9572 0.1546 +0.5564 -1.1128 104.52 52.26
 TIP4P/ε [2444]
c 3.165 0.7732 0.9572 0.105 +0.5270 -1.054 104.52 52.26
 OPC [2168]
c 3.1666 0.8903 0.8724 0.1594 +0.6791 -1.3582 103.6 51.8
 OPC3 [2722]
a 3.17427 0.68369 0.9789 - +0.4476 -0.8952 109.47 -
 SWFLEX-AI 2 [201]
c four terms used 0.9681 0.141,3 +0.6213 -1.2459 102.71 51.351
 COS/G3 [704] 9
c 3.17459 0.9445 1.0000 0.15 +0.450672 -0.901344 109.47 -
 COS/D2 [1617] 9 16
c 18 18 0.9572 0.2472 +0.57 -1.14 104.52 -
 GCPM2 [859] 10
c 3.69 4,11 0.9146 4 0.9572 0.27 +0.6113 -1.2226 104.52 52.26
 SWM4-NDP2 13 [933]
c 3.18395 0.88257 0.9572 0.24034 0.55733 -1.11466 104.52 52.26
c 17 17 0.975 0.2661 +0.584 esu -1.168 esu 104.52 -
 SWM62 13 [1999]
c/d7 3.19833 0.67781 0.9572









 ST2 [872] 12
d 3.10000 0.31694 1.0000 0.80 +0.24357 -0.24357 109.47 109.47
 TIP5P [180]
d 3.12000 0.6694 0.9572 0.70 +0.2410 -0.2410 104.52 109.47
 TIP5P-Ew [619]
d 3.097 0.7448 0.9572 0.70 +0.2410 -0.2410 104.52 109.47
 TTM2-F [1027] 14
c five parameters used 0.9572 0.70 +0.574 -1.148 104.52 52.26
 POL5/TZ 2 [256]
d 2.9837 4 4 0.9572 0.5 varies 5 -0.42188 104.52 109.47
 Six-site [491]


0.980 0.8892L
+0.477 -0.044L
108.00 111.00
1 Average values; 2 Polarizable models; 3 charge = -2.48856; 4 Buckingham potential a, This exponential potential presents a more flexible (that is, softer) surface compared with the Lennard-Jones r-12 interaction; 5 with charge on oxygen atom; 6σ and ε are Lennard-Jones parameters. The separation and depth of the potential energy minimum between two similar molecules (equivalent to diameter); 7 has charges on the lone pair sites (L) as in model type d and the mid-point site (M) as in model type c; 8 has only a single, center of mass, interaction site with a tetrahedrally coordinated sticky potential that regulates the tetrahedral coordination of neighboring molecules; 9 a polarization charge qpol (-8) is connected by a spring to site q2, the total charge (qpol+q2) being given in the table as q2; 10 The charges are smeared (that is, not point charges) using Gaussian distributions with widths of 0.455 Å and 0.610 Å for q1 and q2 respectively; 11 Zero potential position at 3.25 Å. 12 This model over-structures the water. 13 A 'Drude' particle carrying a negative charge -1.71636e is attached by a harmonic spring (4184 kJ mol-1 Å-2 while the oxygen carries a charge +1.71636e. 14 Induced dipoles are placed on the atoms. The van der Waals terms give a deeper, steeper and more distant energy minimum (-1.187 kJ mol-1 at 3.726 Å) than the typical Lennard-Jones potential. 15 Calculated electrostatics contains dipole, quadrupole, octupole and hexadecapole terms. 16 The induced dipole has a sublinear dependence on the electric field. 17 The Lennard-Jones function.has an exponential form. 18 The Lennard-Jones function.has terms for O and H. 19 Calculated electrostatics contains dipole and quadrupole, terms for the oxygen atom.


Some of the above values are varied slightly by different workers. Other workers use diffuse electron density [203] or polarizable versions of the non-polarizable models, using flexible bonding (for example, SWFLEX-AI),  induced dipoles (for example, [181]), energy optimization (for example, the TIP4P-FQ version of TIP4P) or movable charge (for example, SWFLEX-AI), all of which generally give better fit but at a significantly increased computational cost [198]. Polarization mutually strengthens the hydrogen bonding and partially compensates for the absence (except statistically) of the known long range interactions and the dependence of these models on short-ranged forces. Diffuse electron density [203] varies the effective charges with distance. Such models generally perform better away from the ambient conditions under which they are parameterized than the simpler models.


In some circumstances, coarse-grained models are useful. These are computationally cheap for the number of water molecules used and are particularly useful for biomolecular hydration. They suffer in being less good as predictors. Some such models, however, have shown promise, such as one that uses cluster units of four water molecules (an incomplete water tetrahedron) [2656]. Another, using a so-called 'Quantum Drude Oscillator' consisting of a negative charge bound to a positive center by a quantum harmonic oscillator, generates many-body polarization and dispersion interactions [2720]. This model predicts density, surface tension, enthalpy of vaporization and dielectric constant across phases and at surfaces, demonstrating good transferability.


Another modeling system is density functional theory (DFT) that describes the system in terms of its three-dimensional electron density and involving an approximate solution to the Shrödinger equation of a many-body system. Although much useful and interesting work has been achieved, this methodology is still incapable of accurately predicting the properties of liquid water over a range of conditions [2546]. [Back to Top to top of page]

Water model properties

The calculated physical properties of some of the water models are given below.


Calculated physical properties of the water models


Dipole moment e
Dielectric constant
self-diffusion, 10-5 cm2/s
Average configurational energy, kJ mol-1
Density maximum,
Expansion coefficient,
10-4 °C-1

 2.35 [511]

 72 [511]

 2.13 [511]

 -40.2 [511]  -13 [511] -

 2.27 [181]

 65 [185]

 3.85 [182]

 -41.0 [185] -45 [983]  7.3 [704] **

 2.35 [3]

 71 [3]

 2.49 [182]

 -41.5 [3]  -38 [183]  5.14 [994]

 2.39 [994]

 79.63 [994]

 2.32 [994]

- -  4.98 [994]

 2.52 [3]

 77 [3]

 2.6 [3]

 -43.2 [3]  +4 [184] -

 2.35 [180]

 82 [3]

 5.19 [182]  -41.1 [180]  -91 [983]  9.2 [180]

 2.57 [994]

 193 [994]

 3.53 [994] - -  7.81 [994]

 2.78 [2031]

 80.7 [2031]

 2.54 [2031] - 4 [2031]  2.5 [2031]

 2.80 [2401]

 76.3 [2401]

 2.41 [2401] - -  3.38 [2401]
 QCT **
 1.85 [1251]  -
 1.5 [1251]
 -42.7 [1251]
 +10 [1251]  3.5 [1251]

 2.18 [3,180]

 53 a [3]

 3.29 [182]  -41.8 [180]  -25 [180]  4.4 [180]
 2.32 [649]  62.9 [649]  2.4 [649]  -46.5 [649]  +1[649]  3.1[649]


 79 [197]

 1.93 [197]  -41.4 [201]  +7 [197] -

 2.305 [984]

 60 [984]

 2.08 [984] -  +5 [984]  2.8 [984]

 2.319 [1765]

 55.3 [1765]

 1.93 [1765 ] -  +7 [1765 ]  -

 2.4345 [2444]

 78.3 [2444]

 2.10 [2444] -  +4 [2444]  -

 2.48 [2168]

 78.4 [2168]

 2.3 [2168] -   -1 [2168]  2.7 [2168]

 2.43 [2722]

 78.4 [2722]

 2.3 [2722] -    -13 [2722]  4.3 [2722]

 2.69 [201]

 116 [201]  3.66 [201]  -41.7 [201] - -
 COS/G3 **

 2.57 [704]

 88 [704]

 2.6 [704]  -41.1 [704] -78[1939]  7.0 [704]

 2.55 [1617]

 78.9 [1617]

 2.2  [1617]  -41.8  [1617] -  4.9  [1617]

 2.723 [859]

 84.3 [859]

 2.26 [859]  -44.8 [859]  -13 [859] -

 2.461 [933]

 79  [933]

 2.33  [933]  -41.5  [933]
 <-53 [1999]
 2.644 [2080]  79 [2080]
 2.28 [2080]
 -43.32 [2080]
 +4 [2080]  3.01 [2080]

 2.431 [1999]

 78.1 [1999]

 2.14 [1999]  -41.5 [1999]
-48 [1999]

 2.29 [180]

 81.5 [180]

 2.62 [182]  -41.3 [180]  +4 [180]  6.3 [180]

 2.29 [619]

 92 [619]

 2.8 [619] -  +8 [619]  4.9[619]

 2.67 [1027]

 67.2 [1027]

 1.4 [1027]
 -45.1 [1027]
- -

 2.712 [256]

 98 [256]

 1.81 [256]  -41.5 [256]  +25 [256] -
 Six-site *

 1.89 [491]

 33 [491]

- -  +14 [491]  2.4 [491]





 -41.5 [180]



All the data is at 25 °C and 1 atm, except * at 20 °C and ** at 27 °C.


Many of the data values given in the table vary significantly between different workers (see for example, [185]). A comparison of some of the properties of the gas phase dimers for various models are given in a recent paper [704]. b Generally rigid models give excessive stabilization of the dimer compared with polarizable models [1241]. As can be deduced from the data given (and other data), although such simple models are of great utility, no universally applicable model can be identified at this time. It should also be noted that many simulations are performed with just a few hundred water molecules within rectangular periodic boxes no more than 2.5 nm along each edge for times equivalent to a few picoseconds; conditions that reduce discovery of long-range effects and introduce artifacts. Use of cut-off lengths (even long ones) in the intermolecular interactions may also introduce artifacts [761]. It should be noted that there is a strong correlation between the length scale of any water structuring and the time scale which is required to see it. The predictive value of water models has been questioned [202] and, even with current developments, their general application should be approached with caution [203].
Errors found with rigid water models, 25 °C [1858]


% of experimental value
Specific heat, CP Shear viscosity Thermal conductivity
102 31 144
108 37 153
107 36 146
118 47 135
115 64 147
120 65 149
120 88 111
141 91 102


Clearly the water molecule is a flexible molecule with electronic polarization and models that do not include both these characteristics together with their three body interactions are unlikely to be good predictors. This can be seen from the table opposite where the physical parameters determined from the best available rigid models are seen to be unpredictable and unreliable [1858] . Also, such models do somewhat worse as the temperature is lowered.


The agreement of the icosahedral cluster model of water with the O···O radial distribution function and the long range structure apparent from X-ray diffraction [1476] are in marked contrast to the use of many polarizable and non-polarizable models for water, which do not show any fine structure. The popular TIP4P model underestimates the tetrahedrality of the water molecule's environment, which explains its poor estimate of the relative permittivity (dielectric constant). It is, however, remarkably good at qualitatively describing water's phase diagram [669] and this has been developed further in TIP4P/Ice [838] and TIP4PQ/2005 [1895], where 16 CPU.years of computation was required. The SPC/E, PPC, and TIP4P, [3] and BSV, CC, DC, SPC/E and TIP4P, [93] models are reported as failing to properly describe the experimental O···O radial distribution function. The TIP3P and SPC show particularly poor agreement, the TIP4P, SPC/E and PPC show improved agreement but the recent models TIP4P-FQ and increasingly used TIP5P give further improvement [199] at an increased computational cost. However different the model's O···O radial distribution functions are, they give similar numbers of neighbors and hydrogen bonds and so the O···O radial distribution function is a poor discriminator for these factors [199] and certainly should not be used as the sole comparator for a model. The popular models SPC, SPC/E, TIP3P and TIP4P produce poor agreement with water's melting point (giving melting points of 190 K, 215 K, 146 K and 232 K respectively) and SPC, SPC/E, TIP3P and TIP5P do not give ice1h as a stable phase, replacing it with ice II [775] or improbable unrealistic crystal structures and many models mistakenly predict antiferroelectric character for the ordered phases of ice (for example, ice XI) [1051]. The popular SPC/E, TIP4P and TIP4P-Ew models also fail to predict correct critical data, vapor pressure or second virial coefficients [1235]. The commonly used SPC/E and TIP3P models have been proven unreliable even in the liquid phase [1706]. Different models also give very different lowest energy structures for small water clusters [857]. It is also true that models for liquid water bearing little relationship to reality (for example, involving only two dimensions or 8-molecule cubic arrangements) can be used to calculate similarly close results for a small number of water's properties. Most models do not account for the predominantly pz2 character of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO; 1b1), or consequently water's large quadrupole [1731 ]. Nonpolarizable models have been shown to be inherently unable to simultaneously predict certain physical properties, such as melting temperature and the temperature of maximum density, whatever parameter values are chosen due to the limited number of variable parameters [1079, 2159]. It has been proposed that the model [2722] represents the accuracy limit of rigid 3-point water models, but is still somewhat inaccurate. Nuclear quantum effects are rarely included explicitly but give rise to high proton swapping between neighboring water molecules plus strengthening of hydrogen bonds at low temperatures and their weakening at high temperatures [2286]. None of 40 rigid, flexible, polarizable and ab initio models were capable of simultaneously agreeing with both the experimental radial distribution model and the experimental internal energy [245]. Serious discrepancies, concerning the first coordination shell hydrogen bonding, have been noted between the molecular dynamics simulations using these models and X-ray absorption spectroscopy [613]. The computational costs of these models has been compared [2159].


Other modeling studies have failed to reproduce parts of water's vibrational spectrum even qualitatively [696]. Artifacts, such as unnatural phase transitions, may be unexpectedly produced in water simulations [1056] or, worse, go unnoticed. More complete agreement may require many-body parameters [221] as three-body effects have been shown to contribute 14.5% (or more [728]) to the internal energy and these cannot be properly represented by potentials that distort two-body effects [465]. A recent model (GCPM ) using polarizable smeared charges, rather than the other models' point charges, has however shown considerable promise [859]. Other recent steps forward are the inclusion of quantization, which is shown to have significant consequences on water's structuring [863], and the need for high order multipole components, up to hexadecapole, in order to achieve the correct ferroelectric structures for the ordered ice phases [1051]. In a study attempting to combine diffraction, infrared and x-ray absorption data, it was concluded that current water models show poor fit [1159]. It is also clear that care must be taken when combining quantum chemical modeling (involving a small number of molecules) with larger scale, but computationally cheaper, empirical models as some, well-parameterized models (such as TIP5P) may be unsuitable for mixed simulations [1643]. The best water models for liquid water have a charge distribution with a large dipole, a large quadrupole, and negative charge out of the molecular plane, to give symmetrically ordered tetrahedral hydration [2418]. There may be a basic flaw in all these modeling studies (except ab initio) as different parameters are required for different purposes. Thus, optimal parametric values used to describe the potential energy surface are not necessarily the best to describe the dipole moment surface or polarizability surface, which will be particularly relevant when modeling of water in the presence of electric fields [2340] Altogether, it is clear that in spite of water appearing to be a very simple molecule, it remains very difficult to model realistically, probably because it does not consist of almost totally independent molecules held together by weak electrostatic bonds (as modeled) but in 'flickering' clusters and microdomains. At present, the best non-polarizable model appears to be the point-charge model  OPC [2168] and the best polarizable models are  iAMOEBA [2031] and BK3 [2080], which both seem to show good promise. Improvements to existing models and novel methods for optimization are being developed [2299].


The poor prediction (of known parameters) of these models should be taken into account when such models are used to predict unknown parameters and this may be the cause of their failure to describe the experimentally suggested two-state mixture model. This has been attributed to the underlying potential energy surface on which the simulations move being insufficiently corrugated and so leading to an averaged structure rather than a mixture of two families of structures [2189]. a It has been claimed that models generated for zero electric field may fail when an electric field is present [2340].


In the light of these observations, it is unsurprising that contemporary water models are relatively poor predictors for the conformation and hydration of biological molecules in solution (for example, [596, 2279]) and it may be useful to develop water models specifically for use with biomolecular solvation. [Back to Top to top of page]

Aqueous solutions

Although aqueous electrolytes are possibly the simplest of solutions, it has been proven difficult to model them well [2502]. Perhaps this is to be expected due to the problems involved in modeling pure water (see above).

[Back to Top to top of page]


a The Lennard-Jones relationship is a useful isotropic approximation for the energy of the non-bonding interaction between atoms or molecules. Note, however that water is not a spherically symmetrical molecule as judged by the variation in the van der Waals radii [206]. Also, in these models the Lennard-Jones interaction exerts a repulsive effect on hydrogen bonding whereas some report it is attractive [548] even at this close contact. The Lennard-Jones potential is made up of a twelfth power repulsive term and a sixth power attractive term (rij = distance apart of the ith and jth atoms, with σ and ε defined below):

The Lennard-Jones potential = 4 x epsilon x )(sigma over separation)^12 - (sigma over separation)^6 )

Sometimes, this is written

The Lennard-Jones potential = A over separation^12 - B over separation^6

where   A=4εσ12 , B=4εσ6 , sigma=sixth root of A/B   and   epsilon=B squared over 4A

It is likely that the repulsive term is too repulsive and in reality the repulsion is somewhat softer, allowing somewhat easier close molecular contact [1245].


Lennard-Jones potential for the SPC/E model

Shown right is the Lennard-Jones potential for the SPC/E model (solid red line). The σ parameter gives the molecular separation for zero interaction energy. The minimum energy (-ε) lies 12.25 % further at σx21/6 Å. ε is the well depth and a measure of how strongly the two particles attract each other.


Also shown (dotted blue line) is an equivalent Buckingham potential (σ 3.55 Å, ε 0.65 kJ mol-1, γ 12.75); the σ parameter in the Buckingham potential gives the σx21/6 position in the Lennard-Jones potential.

 Buckingham potential    [859] [Back]


b Models may be checked for agreement with gas phase clusters (for example, water dimers) before use in liquid water simulations. Such compliance, however, should not be a necessary prerequisite for accurate liquid water predictions as they tend to be biased towards internal hydrogen bond maximization, and surface unconnected ('dangling') hydrogen bonding capability minimization, due to their relatively large surface area. Thus, they are not representative of real bulk liquid water structuring. [Back]


c Molecular polarization may be electronic (caused by the redistribution of its electrons), geometric (caused by changes in the bond lengths and angles) and/or orientational (caused by the rotation of the whole molecule) [867]. Polarization is an effective way for including many-body effects. This paper [867] describes Charge-On-Spring polarizable force fields (for example, COS/G3) as most suitable for aqueous solutions of proteins (although such COS models are very poor on physical properties such as freezing point [1952]). Alternatively, a model possessing out-of-plane polarization and fluctuating charges (POL5/TZ) is proposed best for comparison with experimental vibrational data [878]. [Back]


d One model describes the water molecule solely in terms of dipoles and polarizabilities on the atoms and a quadrupole on the oxygen atom [736]. [Back]


e It may be that the quadrupole (and higher multipole) interactions are also very important [1228]. These multipole moments of the models are generally far lower than the calculated values for liquid water.


Calculated multipole moments for some water models
Quadrupole moments1
Octupole moments2
qxx, D Å
qyy, D Å
qzz, DÅ
oxxz, D Å2
oyyz, D Å2
ozzz, D Å2
-4.27 [453]
-7.99 [453]
-5.94 [453]
-1.754 [452]
-0.554 [452]
-1.981 [452]

1 Directions as given elsewhere, zero position at the oxygen atom; qxx= Σi cixi2 where c = charge, x = distance in x-direction and the summation is over all (i) charges.

2 Directions as given elsewhere, zero position at the center of mass; oxxz= Σi cixi2zi where c = charge, x and z = distance in x- and z-directions and the summation is over all (i) charges. [Back]


f As an example, the TIP3P model of n atoms makes use of the following equation

Potential = the sum over all atomic interactions of K X the atomic charges multiplied, divided by their separation and plus 4 x epsilon x )(sigma over separation)^12 - (sigma over separation)^6 )" alt="The Lennard-Jones potential = 4 x epsilon x )(sigma over separation)^12 - (sigma over separation)^6 )

where ke is the electrostatic constant, rij= distance apart of the ith and jth atoms, with σ and ε defined above. [Back]


g An 'averaged' structure may not exist at all. Consider an 'average' person:- neither man nor woman. [Back]



Home | Site Index | Icosahedral water clusters | The evidence | LSBU | Top


This page was established in 2001 and last updated by Martin Chaplin on 27 September, 2016

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License