Статья: ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ МЕТОДА МОЛЕКУЛЯРНОЙ ДИНАМИКИ В ЗАДАЧАХ ПРОГНОЗИРОВАНИЯ ПОВЕДЕНИЯ МАТЕРИАЛОВ ИНЖЕНЕРНЫХ БАРЬЕРОВ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ ПЗРО (2024)

1. Cygan R. T., Greathouse J. A., Kalinichev A. G. Advances in ClayFF molecular simulation of layered and nanoporous materials and their aqueous interfaces // J. Phys. Chem. C. 2021. Vol. 125. No. 32. Pp. 17573—17589. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c04600.
2. van Duin A. C. T. et al. ReaxFFSiO Reactive Force Phys. Chem. A. 2003. Vol. 107. No. 19. Pp. 3803—3811. DOI: 10.1021/jp0276303.
3. Tesson S. et al. Classical polarizable force field for clays: pyrophyllite and talc // J. Phys. Chem. C. 2016. Vol. 120. No. 7. Pp. 3749—3758. DOI: 10.1021/acs. jpcc.5b10181.
4. Kobayashi K., Yamaguchi A., Okumura M. Machine learning potentials of kaolinite based on the potential energy surfaces of GGA and meta-GGA density functional theory // Appl. Clay Sci. 2022. Vol. 228. P. 106596. DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2022.106596.
5. Zhang Y. et al. A coarse-grained interaction model for sodium dominant montmorillonite // Langmuir. 2022. Vol. 38. No. 43. Pp. 13226—13237. DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.2c02233.
6. Mantisi B. Generation of polycrystalline material at the atomic scale // Comput. Mater. Sci.
2016. Vol. 118. Pp. 245—250. DOI: 10.1016/j. commatsci.2016.03.002.
7. Procaccia I., Zylberg J. Propagation mechanism of brittle cracks // Phys. Rev. E. 2013. Vol. 87. No. 1. P. 012801. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.012801.
8. Lee M.-S. et al. Structure, dynamics and stability of water/scCO2/mineral interfaces from ab initio molecular dynamics simulations // Sci. Rep. 2015. Vol. 5. P. 14857. DOI: 10.1038/srep14857.
9. Marry V., Rotenberg B. Upscaling strategies for modeling clay-rock properties. In: Developments in Clay Science // Developments in Clay Science. 2015. Vol. 6. Pp. 399—417. DOI: 10.1016/ B978-0-08-100027-4.00011-5.
10. Rotenberg B. et al. Water and ions in clays: unraveling the interlayer/micropore exchange using molecular dynamics // Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. 2007. Vol. 71. No. 21. Pp. 5089—5101. DOI: 10.1016/j. gca.2007.08.018.
11. Rotenberg B. et al. On the driving force of cation exchange in clays: insights from combined microcalorimetry experiments and molecular simulation // Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. 2009. Vol. 73. No. 14. Pp. 4034—4044. DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2009.04.012.
12. Yang C. B., Samper J., Montenegro L. A coupled non-isothermal reactive transport model for longterm geochemical evolution of a HLW repository in clay // Environ. Geol. 2008. Vol. 53. No. 8. Pp. 1627—1638. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-0770-2.
13. Greathouse J. A. et al. Molecular dynamics simulation of diffusion and electrical conductivity in montmorillonite interlayers // J. Phys. Chem. C. 2016. Vol. 120. No. 3. P. 1640—1649. DOI: 10.1021/ acs.jpcc.5b10851.
14. Meleshyn A., Bunnenberg C. The gap between crystalline and osmotic swelling of Na-montmorillonite: A Monte Carlo study // J. Chem. Phys. 2005. Vol. 122. P. 034705. DOI: 10.1063/1.1834499.
15. Rotenberg B. Water in clay nanopores // MRS Bulletin. 2014. Vol. 39. No. 12. Pp. 1074—1081.
DOI: 10.1557/mrs.2014.251.
16. Seppälä A., Puhakka E., Olin M. Effect of layer charge on the crystalline swelling of Na+, K+ and Ca2+ montmorillonites: DFT and molecular dynamicsstudies // Clay Minerals. 2016. Vol. 51.
No. 2. Pp. 197—211. DOI: 10.1180/claymin.2016.051.2.07.
17. Ma Z. et al. Review of application of molecular dynamic simulations in geological high-level radioactive waste disposal // Appl. Clay Sci. 2019. Vol. 168. Pp. 436—449. DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2018.11.018.
18. Jin L. et al. Modeling the mechanisms of clay damage by molecular dynamic simulation // Geofluids. 2017. Vol. 2017. P. 1747068. DOI: 10.1155/2017/1747068.
19. Shen X., Bourg I. C. Molecular dynamics simulations of the colloidal interaction between smectite clay nanoparticles in liquid water // J. Coll. Int. Sci. 2021. Vol. 584. No. 15. Pp. 610—621. DOI: 10.1016/j. jcis.2020.10.029.
20. Li X. et al. Specific elevated adsorption and stability of cations in the interlayer compared with at the external surface of clay minerals // Appl. Clay Sci. 2020. Vol. 198. P. 105814. DOI: 10.1016/j. clay.2020.105814.
21. Zheng X., Bourg I. C. Nanoscale Prediction of the Thermal, Mechanical, and Transport Properties of Hydrated Clay on 106 — and 1015 — Fold Larger Length and Time Scales // ACS Nano 2023. Vol. 17. No. 19. Pp. 18653—19470. DOI: 10.1021/ acsnano.3c05751.
22. Loganathan N., Kalinichev A. G. Quantifying the mechanisms of site-specific ion exchange at an inhomogeneously charged surface: case of Cs+/K+ on hydrated muscovite mica // J. Phys. Chem. C. 2017. Vol. 121. No. 14. Pp. 7829—7836. DOI: 10.1021/acs. jpcc.6b13108.
23. Gao P. et al. Acid–base properties of cis-vacant montmorillonite edge surfaces: a combined firstprinciples molecular dynamics and surface complexation modeling approach // Environ. Sci. Techn. 2023. Vol. 57. Pp. 1342—1352. DOI: 10.1021/acs. est.2c07171.
24. Андреев Г. А. Диффузия молекул воды в присутствии гидратированных ионов // Докл. АН СССР. 1962. Т. 145. № 2. С. 358—359.
25. Manzano H. et al. Insight on tricalcium silicate hydration and dissolution mechanism from molecular simulations // ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2015. Vol. 7. No. 27. Pp. 14726—14733. DOI: 10.1021/ acsami.5b02505.
26. Bahraq A. A. et al. Molecular simulation of cement-based materials and their properties //
Engineering. 2022. Vol. 15. No. 11. Pp. 165—178. DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2021.06.023.
27. Варлаков А. П. и др. Влияние радиационных нагрузок, характерных для высокоактивных отходов, на свойства цементной матрицы // Радиоактивные отходы. 2018. № 1 (2). С. 89—96.
28. Androniuk I., Kalinichev A. G. Molecular dynamics simulation of the interaction of uranium (VI) with the C-S-H phase of cement in the presence of gluconate // Appl. Geochemistry. 2020. Vol. 113. P. 104496. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2019.104496.
29. Lee C. A. et al. Uranium (VI) adsorbate structures on portlandite [Ca(OH)2] type surfaces determined by computational modelling and X-ray absorption spectroscopy // Minerals. 2021.Vol. 11. P. 1241. DOI: 10.3390/min11111241.
30. Duque-Redondo E., Bonnaud P. A., Manzano H. A comprehensive review of C-S-H empirical and computational models, their applications, and practical aspects // Cem. Concr. Res. 2022. Vol. 156. P. 106784. DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106784.
31. Mishra R. K. et al. cemff: A force field database for cementitious materials including validations, applications and opportunities // Cem. Concr. Res. 2017. Vol. 102. Pp. 68—89. DOI: 10.1016/j. cemconres.2017.09.003.
32. Tararushkin E. V., Pisarev V. V., Kalinichev A. G. Atomistic simulations of ettringite and its aqueous interfaces: structure and properties revisited with the modifiedClayFF force field // Cem.
Concr. Res. 2022. Vol. 156. P. 106759. DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106759.
33. Glushak A. A., Smirnov G. S. Partial proton orderingduring phase transition in Friedel’s salt //
Appl. Clay Sci. 2023. Vol. 243. P. 107072. DOI: 10.1016/j. clay.2023.107072.
34. Глушак А. А., Тарарушкин Е. В., Калиничев А. Г. Атомистическое компьютерное моделирование гидрокалюмита как адсорбента радиоактивных анионов из водных растворов // Журнал физической химии. 2022. T. 96. № 4. С. 535—537. DOI: 10.31857/S0044453722040094.
35. Allaire G. et al. Ion transport in porous media: Derivation of the macroscopic equations using upscaling and properties of the effective coefficients // Comput. Geosci. 2013. Vol. 17. No. 3. Pp. 479—495. DOI: 10.1007/s10596-013-9342-6.
36. Churakov S. V., Gimmi T. Up-scaling of molecular diffusion coefficients in clays: a two-step approach // J. Phys. Chem. C. 2011. Vol. 115. Pp. 6703—6714. DOI: 10.1021/jp112325n.
37. Hennig T., Kühn M. Surrogate model for multicomponent diffusion of uranium through Opalinus Clay on the host rock scale // Appl. Sci. 2021. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 786. DOI: 10.3390/app11020786.