The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water
Abstract
Classical Monte Carlo simulations have been carried out for liquid water in the NPT ensemble at 25 °C and 1 atm using six of the simpler intermolecular potential functions for the water dimer: Bernal–Fowler (BF), SPC, ST2, TIPS2, TIP3P, and TIP4P. Comparisons are made with experimental thermodynamic and structural data including the recent neutron diffraction results of Thiessen and Narten. The computed densities and potential energies are in reasonable accord with experiment except for the original BF model, which yields an 18% overestimate of the density and poor structural results. The TIPS2 and TIP4P potentials yield oxygen–oxygen partial structure functions in good agreement with the neutron diffraction results. The accord with the experimental OH and HH partial structure functions is poorer; however, the computed results for these functions are similar for all the potential functions. Consequently, the discrepancy may be due to the correction terms needed in processing the neutron data or to an effect uniformly neglected in the computations. Comparisons are also made for self-diffusion coefficients obtained from molecular dynamics simulations. Overall, the SPC, ST2, TIPS2, and TIP4P models give reasonable structural and thermodynamic descriptions of liquid water and they should be useful in simulations of aqueous solutions. The simplicity of the SPC, TIPS2, and TIP4P functions is also attractive from a computational standpoint.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Computer Simulation of Liquids
Allen, M. P., & Tildesley, D. J. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198803195.001.0001 · Cited by 20,945
The Amber biomolecular simulation programs
Case, D. A., Cheatham, T. E., Darden, T., Gohlke, H., Luo, R., Merz, K. M., Onufriev, A., Simmerling, C., Wang, B., & Woods, R. J. (2005) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20290 · Cited by 9,535
OpenMM 7: Rapid development of high performance algorithms for molecular dynamics
Eastman, P., Swails, J., Chodera, J. D., McGibbon, R. T., Zhao, Y., Beauchamp, K. A., Wang, L.-P., Simmonett, A. C., Harrigan, M. P., Stern, C. D., et al. (2017) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005659 · Cited by 2,748
How fast-folding proteins fold
Lindorff-Larsen, K., Piana, S., Dror, R. O., & Shaw, D. E. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1208351 · Cited by 1,980
Identification of slow molecular order parameters for Markov model construction
Pérez-Hernández, G., Paul, F., Giorgino, T., De Fabritiis, G., & Noé, F. (2013) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.4811489 · Cited by 990
“MKClconcentration(matchingtheexperimentalionicstrength). ThesystemwasthenparametrizedwiththeAMBERff99SB-ILDNforcefield [49];waterandionsweremodeledrespectivelywiththeTIP3PandJoung-Cheathamparametersets [38,37]. Thesystemthuspreparedwasfirstequilibratedfor24nsintheconstant-pressureensemble, during which it stabilized at a…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Jorgensen, W. L., Chandrasekhar, J., Madura, J. D., Impey, R. W., & Klein, M. L.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 1983-07-15
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 926-935
- ISSN
- 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
- 1089-7690
- OpenAlex
- W1976499671
- Cited by
- 41,298
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.445869
- The paper
- Jorgensen, W. L., Chandrasekhar, J., Madura, J. D., Impey, R. W., & Klein, M. L. (1983). Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.445869
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.