ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/langevin/langevin.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/langevin/langevin.tex (file contents):
Revision 3298 by xsun, Wed Jan 2 21:06:31 2008 UTC vs.
Revision 3339 by xsun, Thu Jan 31 17:07:23 2008 UTC

# Line 2 | Line 2
2   %\documentclass[aps,prb,preprint]{revtex4}
3   \documentclass[11pt]{article}
4   \usepackage{endfloat}
5 < \usepackage{amsmath,bm}
5 > \usepackage{amsmath}
6   \usepackage{amssymb}
7   \usepackage{times}
8   \usepackage{mathptmx}
# Line 17 | Line 17
17   \evensidemargin 0.0cm \topmargin -21pt \headsep 10pt \textheight
18   9.0in \textwidth 6.5in \brokenpenalty=10000
19   \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
20 < \renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional reference note
20 > \renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional referenc note
21  
22   \begin{document}
23  
24   \title{An algorithm for performing Langevin dynamics on rigid bodies of arbitrary shape }
25  
26 < \author{Teng Lin, Xiuquan Sun and J. Daniel Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail:
26 > \author{Xiuquan Sun, Teng Lin and J. Daniel Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail:
27   gezelter@nd.edu} \\
28   Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry\\
29   University of Notre Dame\\
# Line 48 | Line 48 | As alternative to Newtonian dynamics, Langevin dynamic
48   \section{Introduction}
49  
50   %applications of langevin dynamics
51 < As alternative to Newtonian dynamics, Langevin dynamics, which
52 < mimics a simple heat bath with stochastic and dissipative forces,
53 < has been applied in a variety of studies. The stochastic treatment
54 < of the solvent enables us to carry out substantially longer time
55 < simulations. Implicit solvent Langevin dynamics simulations of
56 < met-enkephalin not only outperform explicit solvent simulations for
57 < computational efficiency, but also agrees very well with explicit
58 < solvent simulations for dynamical properties.\cite{Shen2002}
59 < Recently, applying Langevin dynamics with the UNRES model, Liow and
60 < his coworkers suggest that protein folding pathways can be possibly
61 < explored within a reasonable amount of time.\cite{Liwo2005} The
62 < stochastic nature of the Langevin dynamics also enhances the
63 < sampling of the system and increases the probability of crossing
64 < energy barriers.\cite{Banerjee2004, Cui2003} Combining Langevin
65 < dynamics with Kramers's theory, Klimov and Thirumalai identified
66 < free-energy barriers by studying the viscosity dependence of the
67 < protein folding rates.\cite{Klimov1997} In order to account for
68 < solvent induced interactions missing from implicit solvent model,
69 < Kaya incorporated desolvation free energy barrier into implicit
70 < coarse-grained solvent model in protein folding/unfolding studies
71 < and discovered a higher free energy barrier between the native and
72 < denatured states. Because of its stability against noise, Langevin
73 < dynamics is very suitable for studying remagnetization processes in
74 < various systems.\cite{Palacios1998,Berkov2002,Denisov2003} For
51 > Langevin dynamics, which mimics a simple heat bath with stochastic and
52 > dissipative forces, has been applied in a variety of situations as an
53 > alternative to molecular dynamics with explicit solvent molecules.
54 > The stochastic treatment of the solvent allows the use of simulations
55 > with substantially longer time and length scales.  In general, the
56 > dynamic and structural properties obtained from Langevin simulations
57 > agree quite well with similar properties obtained from explicit
58 > solvent simulations.
59 >
60 > Recent examples of the usefulness of Langevin simulations include a
61 > study of met-enkephalin in which Langevin simulations predicted
62 > dynamical properties that were largely in agreement with explicit
63 > solvent simulations.\cite{Shen2002} By applying Langevin dynamics with
64 > the UNRES model, Liow and his coworkers suggest that protein folding
65 > pathways can be explored within a reasonable amount of
66 > time.\cite{Liwo2005}
67 >
68 > The stochastic nature of Langevin dynamics also enhances the sampling
69 > of the system and increases the probability of crossing energy
70 > barriers.\cite{Cui2003,Banerjee2004} Combining Langevin dynamics with
71 > Kramers' theory, Klimov and Thirumalai identified free-energy
72 > barriers by studying the viscosity dependence of the protein folding
73 > rates.\cite{Klimov1997} In order to account for solvent induced
74 > interactions missing from the implicit solvent model, Kaya
75 > incorporated a desolvation free energy barrier into protein
76 > folding/unfolding studies and discovered a higher free energy barrier
77 > between the native and denatured states.\cite{HuseyinKaya07012005}
78 >
79 > Because of its stability against noise, Langevin dynamics has also
80 > proven useful for studying remagnetization processes in various
81 > systems.\cite{Palacios1998,Berkov2002,Denisov2003} [Check: For
82   instance, the oscillation power spectrum of nanoparticles from
83 < Langevin dynamics simulation has the same peak frequencies for
84 < different wave vectors, which recovers the property of magnetic
85 < excitations in small finite structures.\cite{Berkov2005a}
83 > Langevin dynamics has the same peak frequencies for different wave
84 > vectors, which recovers the property of magnetic excitations in small
85 > finite structures.\cite{Berkov2005a}]
86  
87 < %review rigid body dynamics
88 < Rigid bodies are frequently involved in the modeling of different
89 < areas, from engineering, physics, to chemistry. For example,
90 < missiles and vehicle are usually modeled by rigid bodies.  The
91 < movement of the objects in 3D gaming engine or other physics
92 < simulator is governed by the rigid body dynamics. In molecular
93 < simulation, rigid body is used to simplify the model in
94 < protein-protein docking study{\cite{Gray2003}}.
87 > In typical LD simulations, the friction and random forces on
88 > individual atoms are taken from Stokes' law,
89 > \begin{eqnarray}
90 > m \dot{v}(t) & = & -\nabla U(x) - \xi m v(t) + R(t) \\
91 > \langle R(t) \rangle & = & 0 \\
92 > \langle R(t) R(t') \rangle & = & 2 k_B T \xi m \delta(t - t')
93 > \end{eqnarray}
94 > where $\xi \approx 6 \pi \eta a$.  Here $\eta$ is the viscosity of the
95 > implicit solvent, and $a$ is the hydrodynamic radius of the atom.
96  
97 < It is very important to develop stable and efficient methods to
98 < integrate the equations of motion for orientational degrees of
99 < freedom. Euler angles are the natural choice to describe the
100 < rotational degrees of freedom. However, due to $\frac {1}{sin
101 < \theta}$ singularities, the numerical integration of corresponding
102 < equations of these motion is very inefficient and inaccurate.
103 < Although an alternative integrator using multiple sets of Euler
104 < angles can overcome this difficulty\cite{Barojas1973}, the
97 > The use of rigid substructures,\cite{Chun:2000fj}
98 > coarse-graining,\cite{Ayton01,Golubkov06,Orlandi:2006fk,SunGezelter08}
99 > and ellipsoidal representations of protein side chains~\cite{Fogolari:1996lr}
100 > has made the use of the Stokes-Einstein approximation problematic.  A
101 > rigid substructure moves as a single unit with orientational as well
102 > as translational degrees of freedom.  This requires a more general
103 > treatment of the hydrodynamics than the spherical approximation
104 > provides.  The atoms involved in a rigid or coarse-grained structure
105 > should properly have solvent-mediated interactions with each
106 > other. The theory of interactions {\it between} bodies moving through
107 > a fluid has been developed over the past century and has been applied
108 > to simulations of Brownian
109 > motion.\cite{FIXMAN:1986lr,Ramachandran1996}
110 >
111 > In order to account for the diffusion anisotropy of arbitrarily-shaped
112 > particles, Fernandes and Garc\'{i}a de la Torre improved the original
113 > Brownian dynamics simulation algorithm~\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
114 > incorporating a generalized $6\times6$ diffusion tensor and
115 > introducing a rotational evolution scheme consisting of three
116 > consecutive rotations.\cite{Fernandes2002} Unfortunately, biases are
117 > introduced into the system due to the arbitrary order of applying the
118 > noncommuting rotation operators.\cite{Beard2003} Based on the
119 > observation the momentum relaxation time is much less than the time
120 > step, one may ignore the inertia in Brownian dynamics.  However, the
121 > assumption of zero average acceleration is not always true for
122 > cooperative motion which is common in proteins. An inertial Brownian
123 > dynamics (IBD) was proposed to address this issue by adding an
124 > inertial correction term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complement to IBD which
125 > has a lower bound in time step because of the inertial relaxation
126 > time, long-time-step inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used to
127 > investigate the inertial behavior of linked polymer segments in a low
128 > friction regime.\cite{Beard2000} LTID can also deal with the
129 > rotational dynamics for nonskew bodies without translation-rotation
130 > coupling by separating the translation and rotation motion and taking
131 > advantage of the analytical solution of hydrodynamics
132 > properties. However, typical nonskew bodies like cylinders and
133 > ellipsoids are inadequate to represent most complex macromolecular
134 > assemblies.  There is therefore a need for incorporating the
135 > hydrodynamics of complex (and potentially skew) rigid bodies in the
136 > library of methods available for performing Langevin simulations.
137 >
138 > \subsection{Rigid Body Dynamics}
139 > Rigid bodies are frequently involved in the modeling of large
140 > collections of particles that move as a single unit.  In molecular
141 > simulations, rigid bodies have been used to simplify protein-protein
142 > docking,\cite{Gray2003} and lipid bilayer
143 > simulations.\cite{SunGezelter08} Many of the water models in common
144 > use are also rigid-body
145 > models,\cite{Jorgensen83,Berendsen81,Berendsen87} although they are
146 > typically evolved using constraints rather than rigid body equations
147 > of motion.
148 >
149 > Euler angles are a natural choice to describe the rotational degrees
150 > of freedom.  However, due to $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ singularities, the
151 > numerical integration of corresponding equations of these motion can
152 > become inaccurate (and inefficient).  Although the use of multiple
153 > sets of Euler angles can overcome this problem,\cite{Barojas1973} the
154   computational penalty and the loss of angular momentum conservation
155 < still remain. A singularity-free representation utilizing
156 < quaternions was developed by Evans in 1977.\cite{Evans1977}
157 < Unfortunately, this approach used a nonseparable Hamiltonian
158 < resulting from the quaternion representation, which prevented the
159 < symplectic algorithm from being utilized. Another different approach
103 < is to apply holonomic constraints to the atoms belonging to the
104 < rigid body. Each atom moves independently under the normal forces
105 < deriving from potential energy and constraint forces which are used
106 < to guarantee the rigidness. However, due to their iterative nature,
107 < the SHAKE and Rattle algorithms also converge very slowly when the
108 < number of constraints increases.\cite{Ryckaert1977, Andersen1983}
155 > remain.  A singularity-free representation utilizing quaternions was
156 > developed by Evans in 1977.\cite{Evans1977} The Evans quaternion
157 > approach uses a nonseparable Hamiltonian, and this has prevented
158 > symplectic algorithms from being utilized until very
159 > recently.\cite{Miller2002}
160  
161 < A break-through in geometric literature suggests that, in order to
162 < develop a long-term integration scheme, one should preserve the
163 < symplectic structure of the propagator. By introducing a conjugate
164 < momentum to the rotation matrix $Q$ and re-formulating Hamiltonian's
165 < equation, a symplectic integrator, RSHAKE\cite{Kol1997}, was
166 < proposed to evolve the Hamiltonian system in a constraint manifold
167 < by iteratively satisfying the orthogonality constraint $Q^T Q = 1$.
117 < An alternative method using the quaternion representation was
118 < developed by Omelyan.\cite{Omelyan1998} However, both of these
119 < methods are iterative and inefficient. In this section, we descibe a
120 < symplectic Lie-Poisson integrator for rigid bodies developed by
121 < Dullweber and his coworkers\cite{Dullweber1997} in depth.
161 > Another approach is the application of holonomic constraints to the
162 > atoms belonging to the rigid body.  Each atom moves independently
163 > under the normal forces deriving from potential energy and constraints
164 > are used to guarantee rigidity. However, due to their iterative
165 > nature, the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithms converge very slowly when the
166 > number of constraints (and the number of particles that belong to the
167 > rigid body) increases.\cite{Ryckaert1977,Andersen1983}
168  
169 < %review langevin/browninan dynamics for arbitrarily shaped rigid body
170 < Combining Langevin or Brownian dynamics with rigid body dynamics,
171 < one can study slow processes in biomolecular systems. Modeling DNA
172 < as a chain of rigid beads, which are subject to harmonic potentials
173 < as well as excluded volume potentials, Mielke and his coworkers
174 < discovered rapid superhelical stress generations from the stochastic
175 < simulation of twin supercoiling DNA with response to induced
176 < torques.\cite{Mielke2004} Membrane fusion is another key biological
177 < process which controls a variety of physiological functions, such as
178 < release of neurotransmitters \textit{etc}. A typical fusion event
179 < happens on the time scale of a millisecond, which is impractical to
180 < study using atomistic models with newtonian mechanics. With the help
181 < of coarse-grained rigid body model and stochastic dynamics, the
136 < fusion pathways were explored by many
137 < researchers.\cite{Noguchi2001,Noguchi2002,Shillcock2005} Due to the
138 < difficulty of numerical integration of anisotropic rotation, most of
139 < the rigid body models are simply modeled using spheres, cylinders,
140 < ellipsoids or other regular shapes in stochastic simulations. In an
141 < effort to account for the diffusion anisotropy of arbitrary
142 < particles, Fernandes and de la Torre improved the original Brownian
143 < dynamics simulation algorithm\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
144 < incorporating a generalized $6\times6$ diffusion tensor and
145 < introducing a simple rotation evolution scheme consisting of three
146 < consecutive rotations.\cite{Fernandes2002} Unfortunately, unexpected
147 < errors and biases are introduced into the system due to the
148 < arbitrary order of applying the noncommuting rotation
149 < operators.\cite{Beard2003} Based on the observation the momentum
150 < relaxation time is much less than the time step, one may ignore the
151 < inertia in Brownian dynamics. However, the assumption of zero
152 < average acceleration is not always true for cooperative motion which
153 < is common in protein motion. An inertial Brownian dynamics (IBD) was
154 < proposed to address this issue by adding an inertial correction
155 < term.\cite{Beard2000} As a complement to IBD which has a lower bound
156 < in time step because of the inertial relaxation time, long-time-step
157 < inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used to investigate the inertial
158 < behavior of the polymer segments in low friction
159 < regime.\cite{Beard2000} LTID can also deal with the rotational
160 < dynamics for nonskew bodies without translation-rotation coupling by
161 < separating the translation and rotation motion and taking advantage
162 < of the analytical solution of hydrodynamics properties. However,
163 < typical nonskew bodies like cylinders and ellipsoids are inadequate
164 < to represent most complex macromolecule assemblies. These intricate
165 < molecules have been represented by a set of beads and their
166 < hydrodynamic properties can be calculated using variants on the
167 < standard hydrodynamic interaction tensors.
169 > In order to develop a stable and efficient integration scheme that
170 > preserves most constants of the motion, symplectic propagators are
171 > necessary.  By introducing a conjugate momentum to the rotation matrix
172 > $Q$ and re-formulating Hamilton's equations, a symplectic
173 > orientational integrator, RSHAKE,\cite{Kol1997} was proposed to evolve
174 > rigid bodies on a constraint manifold by iteratively satisfying the
175 > orthogonality constraint $Q^T Q = 1$.  An alternative method using the
176 > quaternion representation was developed by Omelyan.\cite{Omelyan1998}
177 > However, both of these methods are iterative and suffer from some
178 > related inefficiencies. A symplectic Lie-Poisson integrator for rigid
179 > bodies developed by Dullweber {\it et al.}\cite{Dullweber1997} removes
180 > most of the limitations mentioned above and is therefore the basis for
181 > our Langevin integrator.
182  
183   The goal of the present work is to develop a Langevin dynamics
184   algorithm for arbitrary-shaped rigid particles by integrating the
185 < accurate estimation of friction tensor from hydrodynamics theory
186 < into the sophisticated rigid body dynamics algorithms.
185 > accurate estimation of friction tensor from hydrodynamics theory into
186 > a symplectic rigid body dynamics propagator.  In the sections below,
187 > we review some of the theory of hydrodynamic tensors developed
188 > primarily for Brownian simulations of multi-particle systems, we then
189 > present our integration method for a set of generalized Langevin
190 > equations of motion, and we compare the behavior of the new Langevin
191 > integrator to dynamical quantities obtained via explicit solvent
192 > molecular dynamics.
193  
194 < \section{Computational Methods{\label{methodSec}}}
195 <
176 < \subsection{\label{introSection:frictionTensor}Friction Tensor}
177 < Theoretically, the friction kernel can be determined using the
194 > \subsection{\label{introSection:frictionTensor}The Friction Tensor}
195 > Theoretically, a complete friction kernel can be determined using the
196   velocity autocorrelation function. However, this approach becomes
197 < impractical when the system becomes more and more complicated.
198 < Instead, various approaches based on hydrodynamics have been
199 < developed to calculate the friction coefficients. In general, the
200 < friction tensor $\Xi$ is a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
201 < \[
202 < \Xi  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
203 <   {\Xi _{}^{tt} } & {\Xi _{}^{rt} }  \\
204 <   {\Xi _{}^{tr} } & {\Xi _{}^{rr} }  \\
205 < \end{array}} \right).
206 < \]
207 < Here, $ {\Xi^{tt} }$ and $ {\Xi^{rr} }$ are $3 \times 3$
208 < translational friction tensor and rotational resistance (friction)
209 < tensor respectively, while ${\Xi^{tr} }$ is translation-rotation
210 < coupling tensor and $ {\Xi^{rt} }$ is rotation-translation coupling
211 < tensor. When a particle moves in a fluid, it may experience friction
212 < force or torque along the opposite direction of the velocity or
213 < angular velocity,
214 < \[
197 > impractical when the solute becomes complex. Instead, various
198 > approaches based on hydrodynamics have been developed to calculate the
199 > friction coefficients. In general, the friction tensor $\Xi$ is a
200 > $6\times 6$ matrix given by
201 > \begin{equation}
202 > \Xi  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
203 >   \Xi^{tt} & \Xi^{rt}  \\
204 >   \Xi^{tr} & \Xi^{rr}  \\
205 > \end{array} \right).
206 > \end{equation}
207 > Here, $\Xi^{tt}$ and $\Xi^{rr}$ are $3 \times 3$ translational and
208 > rotational resistance (friction) tensors respectively, while
209 > $\Xi^{tr}$ is translation-rotation coupling tensor and $\Xi^{rt}$ is
210 > rotation-translation coupling tensor. When a particle moves in a
211 > fluid, it may experience friction force ($\mathbf{f}_f$) and torque
212 > ($\mathbf{\tau}_f$) in opposition to the directions of the velocity
213 > ($\mathbf{v}$) and body-fixed angular velocity ($\mathbf{\omega}$),
214 > \begin{equation}
215   \left( \begin{array}{l}
216 < F_R  \\
217 < \tau _R  \\
218 < \end{array} \right) =  - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
219 <   {\Xi ^{tt} } & {\Xi ^{rt} }  \\
220 <   {\Xi ^{tr} } & {\Xi ^{rr} }  \\
221 < \end{array}} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
222 < v \\
223 < w \\
224 < \end{array} \right)
225 < \]
208 < where $F_r$ is the friction force and $\tau _R$ is the friction
209 < torque.
216 > \mathbf{f}_f  \\
217 > \mathbf{\tau}_f  \\
218 > \end{array} \right) =  - \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
219 >   \Xi^{tt} & \Xi^{rt}  \\
220 >   \Xi^{tr} & \Xi^{rr}  \\
221 > \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
222 > \mathbf{v} \\
223 > \mathbf{\omega} \\
224 > \end{array} \right).
225 > \end{equation}
226  
227   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:resistanceTensorRegular}\textbf{The Resistance Tensor for Regular Shapes}}
228 <
229 < For a spherical particle with slip boundary conditions, the
230 < translational and rotational friction constant can be calculated
231 < from Stoke's law,
232 < \[
217 < \Xi ^{tt}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
228 > For a spherical particle under ``stick'' boundary conditions, the
229 > translational and rotational friction tensors can be calculated from
230 > Stokes' law,
231 > \begin{equation}
232 > \Xi^{tt}  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
233     {6\pi \eta R} & 0 & 0  \\
234     0 & {6\pi \eta R} & 0  \\
235     0 & 0 & {6\pi \eta R}  \\
236 < \end{array}} \right)
237 < \]
236 > \end{array} \right)
237 > \end{equation}
238   and
239 < \[
240 < \Xi ^{rr}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
239 > \begin{equation}
240 > \Xi^{rr}  = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
241     {8\pi \eta R^3 } & 0 & 0  \\
242     0 & {8\pi \eta R^3 } & 0  \\
243     0 & 0 & {8\pi \eta R^3 }  \\
244 < \end{array}} \right)
245 < \]
244 > \end{array} \right)
245 > \end{equation}
246   where $\eta$ is the viscosity of the solvent and $R$ is the
247   hydrodynamic radius.
248  
249   Other non-spherical shapes, such as cylinders and ellipsoids, are
250 < widely used as references for developing new hydrodynamics theory,
250 > widely used as references for developing new hydrodynamics theories,
251   because their properties can be calculated exactly. In 1936, Perrin
252 < extended Stokes's law to general ellipsoids, also called a triaxial
253 < ellipsoid, which is given in Cartesian coordinates
254 < by\cite{Perrin1934, Perrin1936}
255 < \[
256 < \frac{{x^2 }}{{a^2 }} + \frac{{y^2 }}{{b^2 }} + \frac{{z^2 }}{{c^2
257 < }} = 1
258 < \]
259 < where the semi-axes are of lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Unfortunately,
260 < due to the complexity of the elliptic integral, only the ellipsoid
261 < with the restriction of two axes being equal, \textit{i.e.}
262 < prolate($ a \ge b = c$) and oblate ($ a < b = c $), can be solved
263 < exactly. Introducing an elliptic integral parameter $S$ for prolate
264 < ellipsoids :
265 < \[
266 < S = \frac{2}{{\sqrt {a^2  - b^2 } }}\ln \frac{{a + \sqrt {a^2  - b^2
267 < } }}{b},
268 < \]
269 < and oblate ellipsoids:
255 < \[
256 < S = \frac{2}{{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2 } }}arctg\frac{{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2 }
257 < }}{a},
258 < \]
259 < one can write down the translational and rotational resistance
260 < tensors
252 > extended Stokes' law to general ellipsoids which are given in
253 > Cartesian coordinates by~\cite{Perrin1934,Perrin1936}
254 > \begin{equation}
255 > \frac{x^2 }{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} + \frac{z^2 }{c^2} = 1.
256 > \end{equation}
257 > Here, the semi-axes are of lengths $a$, $b$, and $c$. Due to the
258 > complexity of the elliptic integral, only uniaxial ellipsoids, either
259 > prolate ($a \ge b = c$) or oblate ($a < b = c$), can be solved
260 > exactly. Introducing an elliptic integral parameter $S$ for prolate,
261 > \begin{equation}
262 > S = \frac{2}{\sqrt{a^2  - b^2}} \ln \frac{a + \sqrt{a^2  - b^2}}{b},
263 > \end{equation}
264 > and oblate,
265 > \begin{equation}
266 > S = \frac{2}{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2 }} \arctan \frac{\sqrt {b^2  - a^2}}{a},
267 > \end{equation}
268 > ellipsoids, one can write down the translational and rotational
269 > resistance tensors:
270   \begin{eqnarray*}
271 < \Xi _a^{tt}  & = & 16\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}. \\
272 < \Xi _b^{tt}  & = & \Xi _c^{tt}  = 32\pi \eta \frac{{a^2  - b^2 }}{{(2a^2  - 3b^2 )S +
264 < 2a}},
271 > \Xi_a^{tt}  & = & 16\pi \eta \frac{a^2  - b^2}{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}. \\
272 > \Xi_b^{tt} =  \Xi_c^{tt} & = & 32\pi \eta \frac{a^2  - b^2 }{(2a^2 - 3b^2 )S + 2a},
273   \end{eqnarray*}
274 < and
274 > for oblate, and
275   \begin{eqnarray*}
276 < \Xi _a^{rr} & = & \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^2  - b^2 )b^2 }}{{2a - b^2 S}}, \\
277 < \Xi _b^{rr} & = & \Xi _c^{rr}  = \frac{{32\pi }}{3}\eta \frac{{(a^4  - b^4 )}}{{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}}.
276 > \Xi_a^{rr} & = & \frac{32\pi}{3} \eta \frac{(a^2  - b^2 )b^2}{2a - b^2 S}, \\
277 > \Xi_b^{rr} = \Xi_c^{rr} & = & \frac{32\pi}{3} \eta \frac{(a^4  - b^4)}{(2a^2  - b^2 )S - 2a}
278   \end{eqnarray*}
279 + for prolate ellipsoids. For both spherical and ellipsoidal particles,
280 + the translation-rotation and rotation-translation coupling tensors are
281 + zero.
282  
283   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:resistanceTensorRegularArbitrary}\textbf{The Resistance Tensor for Arbitrary Shapes}}
273
284   Unlike spherical and other simply shaped molecules, there is no
285   analytical solution for the friction tensor for arbitrarily shaped
286   rigid molecules. The ellipsoid of revolution model and general
287   triaxial ellipsoid model have been used to approximate the
288 < hydrodynamic properties of rigid bodies. However, since the mapping
289 < from all possible ellipsoidal spaces, $r$-space, to all possible
290 < combination of rotational diffusion coefficients, $D$-space, is not
291 < unique\cite{Wegener1979} as well as the intrinsic coupling between
292 < translational and rotational motion of rigid bodies, general
293 < ellipsoids are not always suitable for modeling arbitrarily shaped
294 < rigid molecules. A number of studies have been devoted to
288 > hydrodynamic properties of rigid bodies. However, the mapping from all
289 > possible ellipsoidal spaces, $r$-space, to all possible combination of
290 > rotational diffusion coefficients, $D$-space, is not
291 > unique.\cite{Wegener1979} Additionally, because there is intrinsic
292 > coupling between translational and rotational motion of rigid bodies,
293 > general ellipsoids are not always suitable for modeling arbitrarily
294 > shaped rigid molecules.  A number of studies have been devoted to
295   determining the friction tensor for irregularly shaped rigid bodies
296 < using more advanced methods where the molecule of interest was
297 < modeled by a combinations of spheres\cite{Carrasco1999} and the
298 < hydrodynamics properties of the molecule can be calculated using the
299 < hydrodynamic interaction tensor. Let us consider a rigid assembly of
300 < $N$ beads immersed in a continuous medium. Due to hydrodynamic
301 < interaction, the ``net'' velocity of $i$th bead, $v'_i$ is different
302 < than its unperturbed velocity $v_i$,
303 < \[
296 > using more advanced methods where the molecule of interest was modeled
297 > by a combinations of spheres\cite{Carrasco1999} and the hydrodynamics
298 > properties of the molecule can be calculated using the hydrodynamic
299 > interaction tensor.
300 >
301 > Consider a rigid assembly of $N$ beads immersed in a continuous
302 > medium. Due to hydrodynamic interaction, the ``net'' velocity of $i$th
303 > bead, $v'_i$ is different than its unperturbed velocity $v_i$,
304 > \begin{equation}
305   v'_i  = v_i  - \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {T_{ij} F_j }
306 < \]
307 < where $F_i$ is the frictional force, and $T_{ij}$ is the
308 < hydrodynamic interaction tensor. The friction force of $i$th bead is
309 < proportional to its ``net'' velocity
306 > \end{equation}
307 > where $F_i$ is the frictional force, and $T_{ij}$ is the hydrodynamic
308 > interaction tensor. The frictional force on the $i^\mathrm{th}$ bead
309 > is proportional to its ``net'' velocity
310   \begin{equation}
311   F_i  = \zeta _i v_i  - \zeta _i \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {T_{ij} F_j }.
312   \label{introEquation:tensorExpression}
# Line 332 | Line 343 | B = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
343   construct a $3N \times 3N$ matrix consisting of $N \times N$
344   $B_{ij}$ blocks
345   \begin{equation}
346 < B = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
347 <   {B_{11} } &  \ldots  & {B_{1N} }  \\
346 > B = \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
347 >   B_{11} &  \ldots  & B_{1N}   \\
348      \vdots  &  \ddots  &  \vdots   \\
349 <   {B_{N1} } &  \cdots  & {B_{NN} }  \\
350 < \end{array}} \right),
349 >   B_{N1} &  \cdots  & B_{NN} \\
350 > \end{array} \right),
351   \end{equation}
352   where $B_{ij}$ is given by
353 < \[
353 > \begin{equation}
354   B_{ij}  = \delta _{ij} \frac{I}{{6\pi \eta R}} + (1 - \delta _{ij}
355   )T_{ij}
356 < \]
356 > \end{equation}
357   where $\delta _{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. Inverting the
358   $B$ matrix, we obtain
359   \[
# Line 365 | Line 376 | arbitrary origin $O$ can be written as
376   bead $i$ and origin $O$, the elements of resistance tensor at
377   arbitrary origin $O$ can be written as
378   \begin{eqnarray}
379 + \label{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}
380   \Xi _{}^{tt}  & = & \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {C_{ij} } } \notag , \\
381   \Xi _{}^{tr}  & = & \Xi _{}^{rt}  = \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } , \\
382 < \Xi _{}^{rr}  & = &  - \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } } U_j. \notag \\
383 < \label{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}
382 > \Xi _{}^{rr}  & = &  - \sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_j {U_i C_{ij} } }
383 > U_j  + 6 \eta V {\bf I}. \notag
384   \end{eqnarray}
385 + The final term in the expression for $\Xi^{rr}$ is correction that
386 + accounts for errors in the rotational motion of certain kinds of bead
387 + models. The additive correction uses the solvent viscosity ($\eta$)
388 + as well as the total volume of the beads that contribute to the
389 + hydrodynamic model,
390 + \begin{equation}
391 + V = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_i^3,
392 + \end{equation}
393 + where $\sigma_i$ is the radius of bead $i$.  This correction term was
394 + rigorously tested and compared with the analytical results for
395 + two-sphere and ellipsoidal systems by Garcia de la Torre and
396 + Rodes.\cite{Torre:1983lr}
397 +
398 +
399   The resistance tensor depends on the origin to which they refer. The
400   proper location for applying the friction force is the center of
401   resistance (or center of reaction), at which the trace of rotational
# Line 400 | Line 426 | U_{OP}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
426   \[
427   U_{OP}  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
428     0 & { - z_{OP} } & {y_{OP} }  \\
429 <   {z_i } & 0 & { - x_{OP} }  \\
429 >   {z_{OP} } & 0 & { - x_{OP} }  \\
430     { - y_{OP} } & {x_{OP} } & 0  \\
431   \end{array}} \right)
432   \]
# Line 412 | Line 438 | locate the position of center of resistance,
438   x_{OR}  \\
439   y_{OR}  \\
440   z_{OR}  \\
441 < \end{array} \right) & = &\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
441 > \end{array} \right) & = &\left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
442     {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} }  \\
443     { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} }  \\
444     { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy} }  \\
445 < \end{array}} \right)^{ - 1}  \\
445 > \end{array} \right)^{ - 1}  \\
446    & & \left( \begin{array}{l}
447   (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yz}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zy}  \\
448   (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zx}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xz}  \\
449   (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xy}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yx}  \\
450   \end{array} \right) \\
451   \end{eqnarray*}
452 < where $x_OR$, $y_OR$, $z_OR$ are the components of the vector
452 > where $x_{OR}$, $y_{OR}$, $z_{OR}$ are the components of the vector
453   joining center of resistance $R$ and origin $O$.
454  
429 \subsection{Langevin Dynamics for Rigid Particles of Arbitrary Shape\label{LDRB}}
455  
456 + \section{Langevin Dynamics for Rigid Particles of Arbitrary Shape\label{LDRB}}
457 +
458   Consider the Langevin equations of motion in generalized coordinates
459   \begin{equation}
460 < M_i \dot V_i (t) = F_{s,i} (t) + F_{f,i(t)}  + F_{r,i} (t)
460 > \mathbf{M} \dot{\mathbf{V}}(t) = \mathbf{F}_{s}(t) +
461 > \mathbf{F}_{f}(t)  + \mathbf{F}_{r}(t)
462   \label{LDGeneralizedForm}
463   \end{equation}
464 < where $M_i$ is a $6\times6$ generalized diagonal mass (include mass
465 < and moment of inertial) matrix and $V_i$ is a generalized velocity,
466 < $V_i = V_i(v_i,\omega _i)$. The right side of
467 < Eq.~\ref{LDGeneralizedForm} consists of three generalized forces in
468 < lab-fixed frame, systematic force $F_{s,i}$, dissipative force
469 < $F_{f,i}$ and stochastic force $F_{r,i}$. While the evolution of the
470 < system in Newtownian mechanics typically refers to lab-fixed frame,
471 < it is also convenient to handle the rotation of rigid body in
472 < body-fixed frame. Thus the friction and random forces are calculated
473 < in body-fixed frame and converted back to lab-fixed frame by:
474 < \[
475 < \begin{array}{l}
476 < F_{f,i}^l (t) = Q^T F_{f,i}^b (t), \\
449 < F_{r,i}^l (t) = Q^T F_{r,i}^b (t). \\
450 < \end{array}
451 < \]
452 < Here, the body-fixed friction force $F_{r,i}^b$ is proportional to
453 < the body-fixed velocity at center of resistance $v_{R,i}^b$ and
454 < angular velocity $\omega _i$
464 > where $\mathbf{M}$ is a $6 \times 6$ diagonal mass matrix (which
465 > includes the mass of the rigid body as well as the moments of inertia
466 > in the body-fixed frame) and $\mathbf{V}$ is a generalized velocity,
467 > $\mathbf{V} =
468 > \left\{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{\omega}\right\}$. The right side of
469 > Eq.~\ref{LDGeneralizedForm} consists of three generalized forces: a
470 > system force $\mathbf{F}_{s}$, a frictional or dissipative force
471 > $\mathbf{F}_{f}$ and stochastic force $\mathbf{F}_{r}$. While the
472 > evolution of the system in Newtownian mechanics is typically done in the
473 > lab-fixed frame, it is convenient to handle the rotation of rigid
474 > bodies in the body-fixed frame. Thus the friction and random forces are
475 > calculated in body-fixed frame and converted back to lab-fixed frame
476 > using the rigid body's rotation matrix ($Q$):
477   \begin{equation}
478 < F_{r,i}^b (t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
479 < f_{r,i}^b (t) \\
480 < \tau _{r,i}^b (t) \\
481 < \end{array} \right) =  - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
482 <   {\Xi _{R,t} } & {\Xi _{R,c}^T }  \\
483 <   {\Xi _{R,c} } & {\Xi _{R,r} }  \\
484 < \end{array}} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
485 < v_{R,i}^b (t) \\
486 < \omega _i (t) \\
478 > \mathbf{F}_{f}(t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
479 > Q^{T} \mathbf{f}_{f}^b (t) \\
480 > Q^{T} \tau_{f}^b (t) \\
481 > \end{array} \right), \\
482 > \mathbf{F}_{r}(t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
483 > Q^{T} \mathbf{f}_{r}^b (t) \\
484 > Q^{T} \tau_{r}^b (t) \\
485 > \end{array} \right).
486 > \end{equation}
487 > Here, the body-fixed friction force $\mathbf{F}_{f}^b$ is proportional to
488 > the body-fixed velocity at the center of resistance $\mathbf{v}_{R}^b$ and
489 > angular velocity $\mathbf{\omega}$
490 > \begin{equation}
491 > \mathbf{F}_{f}^b (t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
492 > \mathbf{f}_{f}^b (t) \\
493 > \mathbf{\tau}_{f}^b (t) \\
494 > \end{array} \right) =  - \left( \begin{array}{*{20}c}
495 >   \Xi_{R,t} & \Xi_{R,c}^T  \\
496 >   \Xi_{R,c} & \Xi_{R,r}    \\
497 > \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
498 > \mathbf{v}_{R}^b (t) \\
499 > \mathbf{\omega} (t) \\
500   \end{array} \right),
501   \end{equation}
502 < while the random force $F_{r,i}^l$ is a Gaussian stochastic variable
502 > while the random force $\mathbf{F}_{r}^l$ is a Gaussian stochastic variable
503   with zero mean and variance
504   \begin{equation}
505 < \left\langle {F_{r,i}^l (t)(F_{r,i}^l (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
506 < \left\langle {F_{r,i}^b (t)(F_{r,i}^b (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
507 < 2k_B T\Xi _R \delta (t - t'). \label{randomForce}
505 > \left\langle {\mathbf{F}_{r}^l (t) (\mathbf{F}_{r}^l (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
506 > \left\langle {\mathbf{F}_{r}^b (t) (\mathbf{F}_{r}^b (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
507 > 2 k_B T \Xi_R \delta(t - t'). \label{randomForce}
508   \end{equation}
509 < The equation of motion for $v_i$ can be written as
509 > Once the $6\times6$ resistance tensor at the center of resistance
510 > ($\Xi_R$) is known, obtaining a stochastic vector that has the
511 > properties in Eq. (\ref{eq:randomForce}) can be done efficiently by
512 > carrying out a one-time Cholesky decomposition to obtain the square
513 > root matrix of $\Xi_R$.\cite{SchlickBook} Each time a random force
514 > vector is needed, a gaussian random vector is generated and then the
515 > square root matrix is multiplied onto this vector.
516 >
517 > The equation of motion for $\mathbf{v}$ can be written as
518   \begin{equation}
519 < m\dot v_i (t) = f_{t,i} (t) = f_{s,i} (t) + f_{f,i}^l (t) +
520 < f_{r,i}^l (t)
519 > m \dot{\mathbf{v}} (t) =  \mathbf{f}_{s}^l (t) + \mathbf{f}_{f}^l (t) +
520 > \mathbf{f}_{r}^l (t)
521   \end{equation}
522   Since the frictional force is applied at the center of resistance
523   which generally does not coincide with the center of mass, an extra
524   torque is exerted at the center of mass. Thus, the net body-fixed
525 < frictional torque at the center of mass, $\tau _{n,i}^b (t)$, is
525 > frictional torque at the center of mass, $\tau_{f}^b (t)$, is
526   given by
527   \begin{equation}
528 < \tau _{r,i}^b = \tau _{r,i}^b +r_{MR} \times f_{r,i}^b
528 > \tau_{f}^b \leftarrow \tau_{f}^b + \mathbf{r}_{MR} \times \mathbf{f}_{f}^b
529   \end{equation}
530   where $r_{MR}$ is the vector from the center of mass to the center
531   of the resistance. Instead of integrating the angular velocity in
532   lab-fixed frame, we consider the equation of angular momentum in
533   body-fixed frame
534   \begin{equation}
535 < \dot j_i (t) = \tau _{t,i} (t) = \tau _{s,i} (t) + \tau _{f,i}^b (t)
493 < + \tau _{r,i}^b(t)
535 > \dot j(t) = \tau_{s}^b (t) + \tau_{f}^b (t) + \tau_{r}^b(t)
536   \end{equation}
537 < Embedding the friction terms into force and torque, one can
538 < integrate the langevin equations of motion for rigid body of
539 < arbitrary shape in a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm, where
498 < $h= \delta t$:
537 > Embedding the friction terms into force and torque, one can integrate
538 > the Langevin equations of motion for rigid body of arbitrary shape in
539 > a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm, where $h= \delta t$:
540  
541   {\tt moveA:}
542   \begin{align*}
# Line 574 | Line 615 | the velocities can be advanced to the same time value.
615      + \frac{h}{2} {\bf \tau}^b(t + h) .
616   \end{align*}
617  
618 < \section{Results and Discussion}
618 > \section{Validating the Method\label{sec:validating}}
619 > In order to validate our Langevin integrator for arbitrarily-shaped
620 > rigid bodies, we implemented the algorithm in {\sc
621 > oopse}\cite{Meineke2005} and  compared the results of this algorithm
622 > with the known
623 > hydrodynamic limiting behavior for a few model systems, and to
624 > microcanonical molecular dynamics simulations for some more
625 > complicated bodies. The model systems and their analytical behavior
626 > (if known) are summarized below. Parameters for the primary particles
627 > comprising our model systems are given in table \ref{tab:parameters},
628 > and a sketch of the arrangement of these primary particles into the
629 > model rigid bodies is shown in figure \ref{fig:models}. In table
630 > \ref{tab:parameters}, $d$ and $l$ are the physical dimensions of
631 > ellipsoidal (Gay-Berne) particles.  For spherical particles, the value
632 > of the Lennard-Jones $\sigma$ parameter is the particle diameter
633 > ($d$).  Gay-Berne ellipsoids have an energy scaling parameter,
634 > $\epsilon^s$, which describes the well depth for two identical
635 > ellipsoids in a {\it side-by-side} configuration.  Additionally, a
636 > well depth aspect ratio, $\epsilon^r = \epsilon^e / \epsilon^s$,
637 > describes the ratio between the well depths in the {\it end-to-end}
638 > and side-by-side configurations.  For spheres, $\epsilon^r \equiv 1$.
639 > Moments of inertia are also required to describe the motion of primary
640 > particles with orientational degrees of freedom.
641  
642 < The Langevin algorithm described in previous section has been
643 < implemented in {\sc oopse}\cite{Meineke2005} and applied to studies
581 < of the static and dynamic properties in several systems.
582 <
583 < \subsection{Temperature Control}
584 <
585 < As shown in Eq.~\ref{randomForce}, random collisions associated with
586 < the solvent's thermal motions is controlled by the external
587 < temperature. The capability to maintain the temperature of the whole
588 < system was usually used to measure the stability and efficiency of
589 < the algorithm. In order to verify the stability of this new
590 < algorithm, a series of simulations are performed on system
591 < consisiting of 256 SSD water molecules with different viscosities.
592 < The initial configuration for the simulations is taken from a 1ns
593 < NVT simulation with a cubic box of 19.7166~\AA. All simulation are
594 < carried out with cutoff radius of 9~\AA and 2 fs time step for 1 ns
595 < with reference temperature at 300~K. The average temperature as a
596 < function of $\eta$ is shown in Table \ref{langevin:viscosity} where
597 < the temperatures range from 303.04~K to 300.47~K for $\eta = 0.01 -
598 < 1$ poise. The better temperature control at higher viscosity can be
599 < explained by the finite size effect and relative slow relaxation
600 < rate at lower viscosity regime.
601 < \begin{table}
602 < \caption{AVERAGE TEMPERATURES FROM LANGEVIN DYNAMICS SIMULATIONS OF
603 < SSD WATER MOLECULES WITH REFERENCE TEMPERATURE AT 300~K.}
604 < \label{langevin:viscosity}
642 > \begin{table*}
643 > \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
644   \begin{center}
645 < \begin{tabular}{lll}
646 <  \hline
647 <  $\eta$ & $\text{T}_{\text{avg}}$ & $\text{T}_{\text{rms}}$ \\
648 <  \hline
649 <  1    & 300.47 & 10.99 \\
650 <  0.1  & 301.19 & 11.136 \\
651 <  0.01 & 303.04 & 11.796 \\
652 <  \hline
645 > \caption{Parameters for the primary particles in use by the rigid body
646 > models in figure \ref{fig:models}.}
647 > \begin{tabular}{lrcccccccc}
648 > \hline
649 > & & & & & & & \multicolumn{3}c{$\overleftrightarrow{\mathsf I}$ (amu \AA$^2$)} \\
650 > & & $d$ (\AA) & $l$ (\AA) & $\epsilon^s$ (kcal/mol) & $\epsilon^r$ &
651 > $m$ (amu) & $I_{xx}$ & $I_{yy}$ & $I_{zz}$ \\ \hline
652 > Sphere   & & 6.5 & $= d$ & 0.8 & 1 & 190 & 802.75 & 802.75  & 802.75  \\
653 > Ellipsoid & & 4.6 & 13.8  & 0.8 & 0.2 & 200 & 2105 & 2105 & 421 \\
654 > Dumbbell &(2 identical spheres) & 6.5 & $= d$ & 0.8 & 1   & 190 & 802.75 & 802.75 & 802.75 \\
655 > Banana  &(3 identical ellipsoids)& 4.2 & 11.2  & 0.8 & 0.2 & 240 & 10000 & 10000 & 0 \\
656 > Lipid: & Spherical Head & 6.5 & $= d$ & 0.185 & 1 & 196 & & & \\
657 >       & Ellipsoidal Tail & 4.6 & 13.8  & 0.8   & 0.2 & 760 & 45000 & 45000 & 9000 \\
658 > Solvent &  & 4.7 & $= d$ & 0.8 & 1   & 72.06 & & & \\
659 > \hline
660   \end{tabular}
661 + \label{tab:parameters}
662   \end{center}
663 < \end{table}
663 > \end{minipage}
664 > \end{table*}
665  
618 Another set of calculations were performed to study the efficiency of
619 temperature control using different temperature coupling schemes.
620 The starting configuration is cooled to 173~K and evolved using NVE,
621 NVT, and Langevin dynamic with time step of 2 fs.
622 Fig.~\ref{langevin:temperature} shows the heating curve obtained as
623 the systems reach equilibrium. The orange curve in
624 Fig.~\ref{langevin:temperature} represents the simulation using
625 Nos\'e-Hoover temperature scaling scheme with thermostat of 5 ps
626 which gives reasonable tight coupling, while the blue one from
627 Langevin dynamics with viscosity of 0.1 poise demonstrates a faster
628 scaling to the desire temperature. When $ \eta = 0$, Langevin dynamics becomes normal
629 NVE (see orange curve in Fig.~\ref{langevin:temperature}) which
630 loses the temperature control ability.
631
666   \begin{figure}
667   \centering
668 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{temperature.pdf}
669 < \caption[Plot of Temperature Fluctuation Versus Time]{Plot of
670 < temperature fluctuation versus time.} \label{langevin:temperature}
668 > \includegraphics[width=3in]{sketch}
669 > \caption[Sketch of the model systems]{A sketch of the model systems
670 > used in evaluating the behavior of the rigid body Langevin
671 > integrator.} \label{fig:models}
672   \end{figure}
673  
674 < \subsection{Langevin Dynamics simulation {\it vs} NVE simulations}
674 > \subsection{Simulation Methodology}
675 > We performed reference microcanonical simulations with explicit
676 > solvents for each of the different model system.  In each case there
677 > was one solute model and 1929 solvent molecules present in the
678 > simulation box.  All simulations were equilibrated using a
679 > constant-pressure and temperature integrator with target values of 300
680 > K for the temperature and 1 atm for pressure.  Following this stage,
681 > further equilibration and sampling was done in a microcanonical
682 > ensemble.  Since the model bodies are typically quite massive, we were
683 > able to use a time step of 25 fs.
684  
685 < To validate our langevin dynamics simulation. We performed several NVE
686 < simulations with explicit solvents for different shaped
687 < molecules. There are one solute molecule and 1929 solvent molecules in
688 < NVE simulation. The parameters are shown in table
689 < \ref{tab:parameters}. The force field between spheres is standard
690 < Lennard-Jones, and ellipsoids interact with other ellipsoids and
691 < spheres with generalized Gay-Berne potential. All simulations are
692 < carried out at 300 K and 1 Atm. The time step is 25 ns, and a
693 < switching function was applied to all potentials to smoothly turn off
694 < the interactions between a range of $22$ and $25$ \AA.  The switching
695 < function was the standard (cubic) function,
685 > The model systems studied used both Lennard-Jones spheres as well as
686 > uniaxial Gay-Berne ellipoids. In its original form, the Gay-Berne
687 > potential was a single site model for the interactions of rigid
688 > ellipsoidal molecules.\cite{Gay81} It can be thought of as a
689 > modification of the Gaussian overlap model originally described by
690 > Berne and Pechukas.\cite{Berne72} The potential is constructed in the
691 > familiar form of the Lennard-Jones function using
692 > orientation-dependent $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$ parameters,
693 > \begin{equation*}
694 > V_{ij}({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j}, {\mathbf{\hat
695 > r}_{ij}}) = 4\epsilon ({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j},
696 > {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})\left[\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({\mathbf{\hat u
697 > }_i},
698 > {\mathbf{\hat u}_j}, {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^{12}
699 > -\left(\frac{\sigma_0}{r_{ij}-\sigma({\mathbf{\hat u}_i}, {\mathbf{\hat u}_j},
700 > {\mathbf{\hat r}_{ij}})+\sigma_0}\right)^6\right]
701 > \label{eq:gb}
702 > \end{equation*}
703 >
704 > The range $(\sigma({\bf \hat{u}}_{i},{\bf \hat{u}}_{j},{\bf
705 > \hat{r}}_{ij}))$, and strength $(\epsilon({\bf \hat{u}}_{i},{\bf
706 > \hat{u}}_{j},{\bf \hat{r}}_{ij}))$ parameters
707 > are dependent on the relative orientations of the two ellipsoids (${\bf
708 > \hat{u}}_{i},{\bf \hat{u}}_{j}$) as well as the direction of the
709 > inter-ellipsoid separation (${\bf \hat{r}}_{ij}$).  The shape and
710 > attractiveness of each ellipsoid is governed by a relatively small set
711 > of parameters: $l$ and $d$ describe the length and width of each
712 > uniaxial ellipsoid, while $\epsilon^s$, which describes the well depth
713 > for two identical ellipsoids in a {\it side-by-side} configuration.
714 > Additionally, a well depth aspect ratio, $\epsilon^r = \epsilon^e /
715 > \epsilon^s$, describes the ratio between the well depths in the {\it
716 > end-to-end} and side-by-side configurations.  Details of the potential
717 > are given elsewhere,\cite{Luckhurst90,Golubkov06,SunGezelter08} and an
718 > excellent overview of the computational methods that can be used to
719 > efficiently compute forces and torques for this potential can be found
720 > in Ref. \citen{Golubkov06}
721 >
722 > For the interaction between nonequivalent uniaxial ellipsoids (or
723 > between spheres and ellipsoids), the spheres are treated as ellipsoids
724 > with an aspect ratio of 1 ($d = l$) and with an well depth ratio
725 > ($\epsilon^r$) of 1 ($\epsilon^e = \epsilon^s$).  The form of the
726 > Gay-Berne potential we are using was generalized by Cleaver {\it et
727 > al.} and is appropriate for dissimilar uniaxial
728 > ellipsoids.\cite{Cleaver96}
729 >
730 > A switching function was applied to all potentials to smoothly turn
731 > off the interactions between a range of $22$ and $25$ \AA.  The
732 > switching function was the standard (cubic) function,
733   \begin{equation}
734   s(r) =
735          \begin{cases}
# Line 660 | Line 741 | We have computed translational diffusion constants for
741          \end{cases}
742   \label{eq:switchingFunc}
743   \end{equation}
744 < We have computed translational diffusion constants for lipid molecules
745 < from the mean-square displacement,
744 >
745 > To measure shear viscosities from our microcanonical simulations, we
746 > used the Einstein form of the pressure correlation function,\cite{hess:209}
747   \begin{equation}
748 < D = \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{6 t} \langle {|\left({\bf r}_{i}(t) - {\bf r}_{i}(0) \right)|}^2 \rangle,
748 > \eta = \lim_{t->\infty} \frac{V}{2 k_B T} \frac{d}{dt} \left\langle \left(
749 > \int_{t_0}^{t_0 + t} P_{xz}(t') dt' \right)^2 \right\rangle_{t_0}.
750 > \label{eq:shear}
751   \end{equation}
752 < of the solute molecules. Translational diffusion constants for the
669 < different shaped molecules are shown in table
670 < \ref{tab:translation}.  We have also computed orientational correlation
671 < times for different shaped molecules from fits of the second-order
672 < Legendre polynomial correlation function,
752 > A similar form exists for the bulk viscosity
753   \begin{equation}
754 < C_{\ell}(t)  =  \langle P_{\ell}\left({\bf \mu}_{i}(t) \cdot {\bf
755 < \mu}_{i}(0) \right)
754 > \kappa = \lim_{t->\infty} \frac{V}{2 k_B T} \frac{d}{dt} \left\langle \left(
755 > \int_{t_0}^{t_0 + t}
756 > \left(P\left(t'\right)-\left\langle P \right\rangle \right)dt'
757 > \right)^2 \right\rangle_{t_0}.
758   \end{equation}
759 < the results are shown in table \ref{tab:rotation}. We used einstein
760 < format of the pressure correlation function,
759 > Alternatively, the shear viscosity can also be calculated using a
760 > Green-Kubo formula with the off-diagonal pressure tensor correlation function,
761   \begin{equation}
762 < C_{\ell}(t)  =  \langle P_{\ell}\left({\bf \mu}_{i}(t) \cdot {\bf
763 < \mu}_{i}(0) \right)
762 > \eta = \frac{V}{k_B T} \int_0^{\infty} \left\langle P_{xz}(t_0) P_{xz}(t_0
763 > + t) \right\rangle_{t_0} dt,
764   \end{equation}
765 < to estimate the viscosity of the systems from NVE simulations. The
766 < viscosity can also be calculated by Green-Kubo pressure correlaton
767 < function,
765 > although this method converges extremely slowly and is not practical
766 > for obtaining viscosities from molecular dynamics simulations.
767 >
768 > The Langevin dynamics for the different model systems were performed
769 > at the same temperature as the average temperature of the
770 > microcanonical simulations and with a solvent viscosity taken from
771 > Eq. (\ref{eq:shear}) applied to these simulations.  We used 1024
772 > independent solute simulations to obtain statistics on our Langevin
773 > integrator.
774 >
775 > \subsection{Analysis}
776 >
777 > The quantities of interest when comparing the Langevin integrator to
778 > analytic hydrodynamic equations and to molecular dynamics simulations
779 > are typically translational diffusion constants and orientational
780 > relaxation times.  Translational diffusion constants for point
781 > particles are computed easily from the long-time slope of the
782 > mean-square displacement,
783   \begin{equation}
784 < C_{\ell}(t)  =  \langle P_{\ell}\left({\bf \mu}_{i}(t) \cdot {\bf
688 < \mu}_{i}(0) \right)
784 > D = \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{6 t} \left\langle {|\left({\bf r}_{i}(t) - {\bf r}_{i}(0) \right)|}^2 \right\rangle,
785   \end{equation}
786 < However, this method converges slowly, and the statistics are not good
787 < enough to give us a very accurate value. The langevin dynamics
788 < simulations for different shaped molecules are performed at the same
789 < conditions as the NVE simulations with viscosity estimated from NVE
790 < simulations. To get better statistics, 1024 non-interacting solute
791 < molecules are put into one simulation box for each langevin
792 < simulation, this is equal to 1024 simulations for single solute
793 < systems. The diffusion constants and rotation relaxation times for
794 < different shaped molecules are shown in table \ref{tab:translation}
795 < and \ref{tab:rotation} to compare to the results calculated from NVE
700 < simulations. The theoretical values for sphere is calculated from the
701 < Stokes-Einstein law, the theoretical values for ellipsoid is
702 < calculated from Perrin's fomula, the theoretical values for dumbbell
703 < is calculated from StinXX and Davis theory. The exact method is
704 < applied to the langevin dynamics simulations for sphere and ellipsoid,
705 < the bead model is applied to the simulation for dumbbell molecule, and
706 < the rough shell model is applied to ellipsoid, dumbbell, banana and
707 < lipid molecules. The results from all the langevin dynamics
708 < simulations, including exact, bead model and rough shell, match the
709 < theoretical values perfectly for all different shaped molecules. This
710 < indicates that our simulation package for langevin dynamics is working
711 < well. The approxiate methods ( bead model and rough shell model) are
712 < accurate enough for the current simulations. The goal of the langevin
713 < dynamics theory is to replace the explicit solvents by the friction
714 < forces. We compared the dynamic properties of different shaped
715 < molecules in langevin dynamics simulations with that in NVE
716 < simulations. The results are reasonable close. Overall, the
717 < translational diffusion constants calculated from langevin dynamics
718 < simulations are very close to the values from the NVE simulation. For
719 < sphere and lipid molecules, the diffusion constants are a little bit
720 < off from the NVE simulation results. One possible reason is that the
721 < calculation of the viscosity is very difficult to be accurate. Another
722 < possible reason is that although we save very frequently during the
723 < NVE simulations and run pretty long time simulations, there is only
724 < one solute molecule in the system which makes the calculation for the
725 < diffusion constant difficult. The sphere molecule behaves as a free
726 < rotor in the solvent, so there is no rotation relaxation time
727 < calculated from NVE simulations. The rotation relaxation time is not
728 < very close to the NVE simulations results. The banana and lipid
729 < molecules match the NVE simulations results pretty well. The mismatch
730 < between langevin dynamics and NVE simulation for ellipsoid is possibly
731 < caused by the slip boundary condition. For dumbbell, the mismatch is
732 < caused by the size of the solvent molecule is pretty large compared to
733 < dumbbell molecule in NVE simulations.
786 > of the solute molecules.  For models in which the translational
787 > diffusion tensor (${\bf D}_{tt}$) has non-degenerate eigenvalues
788 > (i.e. any non-spherically-symmetric rigid body), it is possible to
789 > compute the diffusive behavior for motion parallel to each body-fixed
790 > axis by projecting the displacement of the particle onto the
791 > body-fixed reference frame at $t=0$.  With an isotropic solvent, as we
792 > have used in this study, there are differences between the three
793 > diffusion constants, but these must converge to the same value at
794 > longer times.  Translational diffusion constants for the different
795 > shaped models are shown in table \ref{tab:translation}.
796  
797 + In general, the three eigenvalues ($D_1, D_2, D_3$) of the rotational
798 + diffusion tensor (${\bf D}_{rr}$) measure the diffusion of an object
799 + {\it around} a particular body-fixed axis and {\it not} the diffusion
800 + of a vector pointing along the axis.  However, these eigenvalues can
801 + be combined to find 5 characteristic rotational relaxation
802 + times,\cite{PhysRev.119.53,Berne90}
803 + \begin{eqnarray}
804 + 1 / \tau_1 & = & 6 D_r + 2 \Delta \\
805 + 1 / \tau_2 & = & 6 D_r - 2 \Delta \\
806 + 1 / \tau_3 & = & 3 (D_r + D_1)  \\
807 + 1 / \tau_4 & = & 3 (D_r + D_2) \\
808 + 1 / \tau_5 & = & 3 (D_r + D_3)
809 + \end{eqnarray}
810 + where
811 + \begin{equation}
812 + D_r = \frac{1}{3} \left(D_1 + D_2 + D_3 \right)
813 + \end{equation}
814 + and
815 + \begin{equation}
816 + \Delta = \left( (D_1 - D_2)^2 + (D_3 - D_1 )(D_3 - D_2)\right)^{1/2}
817 + \end{equation}
818 + Each of these characteristic times can be used to predict the decay of
819 + part of the rotational correlation function when $\ell = 2$,
820 + \begin{equation}
821 + C_2(t)  =  \frac{a^2}{N^2} e^{-t/\tau_1} + \frac{b^2}{N^2} e^{-t/\tau_2}.
822 + \end{equation}
823 + This is the same as the $F^2_{0,0}(t)$ correlation function that
824 + appears in Ref. \citen{Berne90}.  The amplitudes of the two decay
825 + terms are expressed in terms of three dimensionless functions of the
826 + eigenvalues: $a = \sqrt{3} (D_1 - D_2)$, $b = (2D_3 - D_1 - D_2 +
827 + 2\Delta)$, and $N = 2 \sqrt{\Delta b}$.  Similar expressions can be
828 + obtained for other angular momentum correlation
829 + functions.\cite{PhysRev.119.53,Berne90} In all of the model systems we
830 + studied, only one of the amplitudes of the two decay terms was
831 + non-zero, so it was possible to derive a single relaxation time for
832 + each of the hydrodynamic tensors. In many cases, these characteristic
833 + times are averaged and reported in the literature as a single relaxation
834 + time,\cite{Garcia-de-la-Torre:1997qy}
835 + \begin{equation}
836 + 1 / \tau_0 = \frac{1}{5} \sum_{i=1}^5 \tau_{i}^{-1},
837 + \end{equation}
838 + although for the cases reported here, this averaging is not necessary
839 + and only one of the five relaxation times is relevant.
840 +
841 + To test the Langevin integrator's behavior for rotational relaxation,
842 + we have compared the analytical orientational relaxation times (if
843 + they are known) with the general result from the diffusion tensor and
844 + with the results from both the explicitly solvated molecular dynamics
845 + and Langevin simulations.  Relaxation times from simulations (both
846 + microcanonical and Langevin), were computed using Legendre polynomial
847 + correlation functions for a unit vector (${\bf u}$) fixed along one or
848 + more of the body-fixed axes of the model.
849 + \begin{equation}
850 + C_{\ell}(t)  =  \left\langle P_{\ell}\left({\bf u}_{i}(t) \cdot {\bf
851 + u}_{i}(0) \right) \right\rangle
852 + \end{equation}
853 + For simulations in the high-friction limit, orientational correlation
854 + times can then be obtained from exponential fits of this function, or by
855 + integrating,
856 + \begin{equation}
857 + \tau = \ell (\ell + 1) \int_0^{\infty} C_{\ell}(t) dt.
858 + \end{equation}
859 + In lower-friction solvents, the Legendre correlation functions often
860 + exhibit non-exponential decay, and may not be characterized by a
861 + single decay constant.
862 +
863 + In table \ref{tab:rotation} we show the characteristic rotational
864 + relaxation times (based on the diffusion tensor) for each of the model
865 + systems compared with the values obtained via microcanonical and Langevin
866 + simulations.
867 +
868 + \subsection{Spherical particles}
869 + Our model system for spherical particles was a Lennard-Jones sphere of
870 + diameter ($\sigma$) 6.5 \AA\ in a sea of smaller spheres ($\sigma$ =
871 + 4.7 \AA).  The well depth ($\epsilon$) for both particles was set to
872 + an arbitrary value of 0.8 kcal/mol.  
873 +
874 + The Stokes-Einstein behavior of large spherical particles in
875 + hydrodynamic flows is well known, giving translational friction
876 + coefficients of $6 \pi \eta R$ (stick boundary conditions) and
877 + rotational friction coefficients of $8 \pi \eta R^3$.  Recently,
878 + Schmidt and Skinner have computed the behavior of spherical tag
879 + particles in molecular dynamics simulations, and have shown that {\it
880 + slip} boundary conditions ($\Xi_{tt} = 4 \pi \eta R$) may be more
881 + appropriate for molecule-sized spheres embedded in a sea of spherical
882 + solvent particles.\cite{Schmidt:2004fj,Schmidt:2003kx}
883 +
884 + Our simulation results show similar behavior to the behavior observed
885 + by Schmidt and Skinner.  The diffusion constant obtained from our
886 + microcanonical molecular dynamics simulations lies between the slip
887 + and stick boundary condition results obtained via Stokes-Einstein
888 + behavior.  Since the Langevin integrator assumes Stokes-Einstein stick
889 + boundary conditions in calculating the drag and random forces for
890 + spherical particles, our Langevin routine obtains nearly quantitative
891 + agreement with the hydrodynamic results for spherical particles.  One
892 + avenue for improvement of the method would be to compute elements of
893 + $\Xi_{tt}$ assuming behavior intermediate between the two boundary
894 + conditions.
895 +
896 + In the explicit solvent simulations, both our solute and solvent
897 + particles were structureless, exerting no torques upon each other.
898 + Therefore, there are not rotational correlation times available for
899 + this model system.
900 +
901 + \subsection{Ellipsoids}
902 + For uniaxial ellipsoids ($a > b = c$), Perrin's formulae for both
903 + translational and rotational diffusion of each of the body-fixed axes
904 + can be combined to give a single translational diffusion
905 + constant,\cite{Berne90}
906 + \begin{equation}
907 + D = \frac{k_B T}{6 \pi \eta a} G(\rho),
908 + \label{Dperrin}
909 + \end{equation}
910 + as well as a single rotational diffusion coefficient,
911 + \begin{equation}
912 + \Theta = \frac{3 k_B T}{16 \pi \eta a^3} \left\{ \frac{(2 - \rho^2)
913 + G(\rho) - 1}{1 - \rho^4} \right\}.
914 + \label{ThetaPerrin}
915 + \end{equation}
916 + In these expressions, $G(\rho)$ is a function of the axial ratio
917 + ($\rho = b / a$), which for prolate ellipsoids, is
918 + \begin{equation}
919 + G(\rho) = (1- \rho^2)^{-1/2} \ln \left\{ \frac{1 + (1 -
920 + \rho^2)^{1/2}}{\rho} \right\}
921 + \label{GPerrin}
922 + \end{equation}
923 + Again, there is some uncertainty about the correct boundary conditions
924 + to use for molecular-scale ellipsoids in a sea of similarly-sized
925 + solvent particles.  Ravichandran and Bagchi found that {\it slip}
926 + boundary conditions most closely resembled the simulation
927 + results,\cite{Ravichandran:1999fk} in agreement with earlier work of
928 + Tang and Evans.\cite{TANG:1993lr}
929 +
930 + Even though there are analytic resistance tensors for ellipsoids, we
931 + constructed a rough-shell model using 2135 beads (each with a diameter
932 + of 0.25 \AA) to approximate the shape of the model ellipsoid.  We
933 + compared the Langevin dynamics from both the simple ellipsoidal
934 + resistance tensor and the rough shell approximation with
935 + microcanonical simulations and the predictions of Perrin.  As in the
936 + case of our spherical model system, the Langevin integrator reproduces
937 + almost exactly the behavior of the Perrin formulae (which is
938 + unsurprising given that the Perrin formulae were used to derive the
939 + drag and random forces applied to the ellipsoid).  We obtain
940 + translational diffusion constants and rotational correlation times
941 + that are within a few percent of the analytic values for both the
942 + exact treatment of the diffusion tensor as well as the rough-shell
943 + model for the ellipsoid.
944 +
945 + The translational diffusion constants from the microcanonical simulations
946 + agree well with the predictions of the Perrin model, although the rotational
947 + correlation times are a factor of 2 shorter than expected from hydrodynamic
948 + theory.  One explanation for the slower rotation
949 + of explicitly-solvated ellipsoids is the possibility that solute-solvent
950 + collisions happen at both ends of the solute whenever the principal
951 + axis of the ellipsoid is turning. In the upper portion of figure
952 + \ref{fig:explanation} we sketch a physical picture of this explanation.
953 + Since our Langevin integrator is providing nearly quantitative agreement with
954 + the Perrin model, it also predicts orientational diffusion for ellipsoids that
955 + exceed explicitly solvated correlation times by a factor of two.
956 +
957 + \subsection{Rigid dumbbells}
958 + Perhaps the only {\it composite} rigid body for which analytic
959 + expressions for the hydrodynamic tensor are available is the
960 + two-sphere dumbbell model.  This model consists of two non-overlapping
961 + spheres held by a rigid bond connecting their centers. There are
962 + competing expressions for the 6x6 resistance tensor for this
963 + model. Equation (\ref{introEquation:oseenTensor}) above gives the
964 + original Oseen tensor, while the second order expression introduced by
965 + Rotne and Prager,\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by Garc\'{i}a de la
966 + Torre and Bloomfield,\cite{Torre1977} is given above as
967 + Eq. (\ref{introEquation:RPTensorNonOverlapped}).  In our case, we use
968 + a model dumbbell in which the two spheres are identical Lennard-Jones
969 + particles ($\sigma$ = 6.5 \AA\ , $\epsilon$ = 0.8 kcal / mol) held at
970 + a distance of 6.532 \AA.
971 +
972 + The theoretical values for the translational diffusion constant of the
973 + dumbbell are calculated from the work of Stimson and Jeffery, who
974 + studied the motion of this system in a flow parallel to the
975 + inter-sphere axis,\cite{Stimson:1926qy} and Davis, who studied the
976 + motion in a flow {\it perpendicular} to the inter-sphere
977 + axis.\cite{Davis:1969uq} We know of no analytic solutions for the {\it
978 + orientational} correlation times for this model system (other than
979 + those derived from the 6 x 6 tensors mentioned above).
980 +
981 + The bead model for this model system comprises the two large spheres
982 + by themselves, while the rough shell approximation used 3368 separate
983 + beads (each with a diameter of 0.25 \AA) to approximate the shape of
984 + the rigid body.  The hydrodynamics tensors computed from both the bead
985 + and rough shell models are remarkably similar.  Computing the initial
986 + hydrodynamic tensor for a rough shell model can be quite expensive (in
987 + this case it requires inverting a 10104 x 10104 matrix), while the
988 + bead model is typically easy to compute (in this case requiring
989 + inversion of a 6 x 6 matrix).  
990 +
991 + \begin{figure}
992 + \centering
993 + \includegraphics[width=2in]{RoughShell}
994 + \caption[Model rigid bodies and their rough shell approximations]{The
995 + model rigid bodies (left column) used to test this algorithm and their
996 + rough-shell approximations (right-column) that were used to compute
997 + the hydrodynamic tensors.  The top two models (ellipsoid and dumbbell)
998 + have analytic solutions and were used to test the rough shell
999 + approximation.  The lower two models (banana and lipid) were compared
1000 + with explicitly-solvated molecular dynamics simulations. }
1001 + \label{fig:roughShell}
1002 + \end{figure}
1003 +
1004 +
1005 + Once the hydrodynamic tensor has been computed, there is no additional
1006 + penalty for carrying out a Langevin simulation with either of the two
1007 + different hydrodynamics models.  Our naive expectation is that since
1008 + the rigid body's surface is roughened under the various shell models,
1009 + the diffusion constants will be even farther from the ``slip''
1010 + boundary conditions than observed for the bead model (which uses a
1011 + Stokes-Einstein model to arrive at the hydrodynamic tensor).  For the
1012 + dumbbell, this prediction is correct although all of the Langevin
1013 + diffusion constants are within 6\% of the diffusion constant predicted
1014 + from the fully solvated system.
1015 +
1016 + For rotational motion, Langevin integration (and the hydrodynamic tensor)
1017 + yields rotational correlation times that are substantially shorter than those
1018 + obtained from explicitly-solvated simulations.  It is likely that this is due
1019 + to the large size of the explicit solvent spheres, a feature that prevents
1020 + the solvent from coming in contact with a substantial fraction of the surface
1021 + area of the dumbbell.  Therefore, the explicit solvent only provides drag
1022 + over a substantially reduced surface area of this model, while the
1023 + hydrodynamic theories utilize the entire surface area for estimating
1024 + rotational diffusion.  A sketch of the free volume available in the explicit
1025 + solvent simulations is shown in figure \ref{fig:explanation}.
1026 +
1027 +
1028 + \begin{figure}
1029 + \centering
1030 + \includegraphics[width=6in]{explanation}
1031 + \caption[Explanations of the differences between orientational
1032 + correlation times for explicitly-solvated models and hydrodynamics
1033 + predictions]{Explanations of the differences between orientational
1034 + correlation times for explicitly-solvated models and hydrodynamic
1035 + predictions.   For the ellipsoids (upper figures), rotation of the
1036 + principal axis can involve correlated collisions at both sides of the
1037 + solute.  In the rigid dumbbell model (lower figures), the large size
1038 + of the explicit solvent spheres prevents them from coming in contact
1039 + with a substantial fraction of the surface area of the dumbbell.
1040 + Therefore, the explicit solvent only provides drag over a
1041 + substantially reduced surface area of this model, where the
1042 + hydrodynamic theories utilize the entire surface area for estimating
1043 + rotational diffusion.
1044 + } \label{fig:explanation}
1045 + \end{figure}
1046 +
1047 +
1048 +
1049 + \subsection{Composite banana-shaped molecules}
1050 + Banana-shaped rigid bodies composed of three Gay-Berne ellipsoids have
1051 + been used by Orlandi {\it et al.} to observe mesophases in
1052 + coarse-grained models for bent-core liquid crystalline
1053 + molecules.\cite{Orlandi:2006fk} We have used the same overlapping
1054 + ellipsoids as a way to test the behavior of our algorithm for a
1055 + structure of some interest to the materials science community,
1056 + although since we are interested in capturing only the hydrodynamic
1057 + behavior of this model, we have left out the dipolar interactions of
1058 + the original Orlandi model.
1059 +
1060 + A reference system composed of a single banana rigid body embedded in a
1061 + sea of 1929 solvent particles was created and run under standard
1062 + (microcanonical) molecular dynamics.  The resulting viscosity of this
1063 + mixture was 0.298 centipoise (as estimated using Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).
1064 + To calculate the hydrodynamic properties of the banana rigid body model,
1065 + we created a rough shell (see Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which
1066 + the banana is represented as a ``shell'' made of 3321 identical beads
1067 + (0.25 \AA\  in diameter) distributed on the surface.  Applying the
1068 + procedure described in Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
1069 + identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0.81 \AA, 0 \AA), as
1070 + well as the resistance tensor,
1071 + \begin{equation*}
1072 + \Xi =
1073 + \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1074 + 0.9261 & 0 & 0&0&0.08585&0.2057\\
1075 + 0& 0.9270&-0.007063& 0.08585&0&0\\
1076 + 0&-0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&0&0\\
1077 + 0&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 0&0\\0.08585&0&0&0&48.30&3.219&\\0.2057&0&0&0&3.219&10.7373\\\end{array}} \right),
1078 + \end{equation*}
1079 + where the units for translational, translation-rotation coupling and
1080 + rotational tensors are (kcal fs / mol \AA$^2$), (kcal fs / mol \AA\ rad),
1081 + and (kcal fs / mol rad$^2$), respectively.
1082 +
1083 + The Langevin rigid-body integrator (and the hydrodynamic diffusion tensor)
1084 + are essentially quantitative for translational diffusion of this model.  
1085 + Orientational correlation times under the Langevin rigid-body integrator
1086 + are within 11\% of the values obtained from explicit solvent, but these
1087 + models also exhibit some solvent inaccessible surface area in the
1088 + explicitly-solvated case.  
1089 +
1090 + \subsection{Composite sphero-ellipsoids}
1091 + Spherical heads perched on the ends of Gay-Berne ellipsoids have been
1092 + used recently as models for lipid
1093 + molecules.\cite{SunGezelter08,Ayton01}
1094 + MORE DETAILS
1095 +
1096 + A reference system composed of a single lipid rigid body embedded in a
1097 + sea of 1929 solvent particles was created and run under standard
1098 + (microcanonical) molecular dynamics.  The resulting viscosity of this
1099 + mixture was 0.349 centipoise (as estimated using
1100 + Eq. (\ref{eq:shear})).  To calculate the hydrodynamic properties of
1101 + the lipid rigid body model, we created a rough shell (see
1102 + Fig.~\ref{fig:roughShell}), in which the lipid is represented as a
1103 + ``shell'' made of 3550 identical beads (0.25 \AA\ in diameter)
1104 + distributed on the surface.  Applying the procedure described in
1105 + Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
1106 + identified the center of resistance, ${\bf r} = $(0 \AA, 0 \AA, 1.46
1107 + \AA).
1108 +
1109 +
1110 + \subsection{Summary}
1111   According to our simulations, the langevin dynamics is a reliable
1112   theory to apply to replace the explicit solvents, especially for the
1113   translation properties. For large molecules, the rotation properties
1114   are also mimiced reasonablly well.
1115  
1116 < \begin{table*}
1117 < \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
1118 < \begin{center}
1119 < \caption{}
1120 < \begin{tabular}{llccccccc}
1121 < \hline
1122 <  & & Sphere & Ellipsoid & Dumbbell(2 spheres) & Banana(3 ellpsoids) &
1123 < Lipid(head) & lipid(tail) & Solvent \\
1124 < \hline
1125 < $d$ (\AA) & & 6.5 & 4.6  & 6.5 &  4.2 & 6.5 & 4.6 & 4.7 \\
1126 < $l$ (\AA) & & $= d$ & 13.8 & $=d$ & 11.2 & $=d$ & 13.8 & 4.7 \\
1127 < $\epsilon^s$ (kcal/mol) & & 0.8 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 0.185 & 0.8 & 0.8 \\
1128 < $\epsilon_r$ (well-depth aspect ratio)& & 1 & 0.2 & 1 & 0.2 & 1 & 0.2 & 1 \\
1129 < $m$ (amu) & & 190 & 200 & 190 & 240 & 196 & 760 & 72.06 \\
1130 < %$\overleftrightarrow{\mathsf I}$ (amu \AA$^2$) & & & & \\
1131 < %\multicolumn{2}c{$I_{xx}$} & 1125 & 45000 & N/A \\
1132 < %\multicolumn{2}c{$I_{yy}$} & 1125 & 45000 & N/A \\
757 < %\multicolumn{2}c{$I_{zz}$} &  0 &    9000 & N/A \\
758 < %$\mu$ (Debye) & & varied & 0 & 0 \\
759 < \end{tabular}
760 < \label{tab:parameters}
761 < \end{center}
762 < \end{minipage}
763 < \end{table*}
1116 > \begin{figure}
1117 > \centering
1118 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{graph}
1119 > \caption[Mean squared displacements and orientational
1120 > correlation functions for each of the model rigid bodies.]{The
1121 > mean-squared displacements ($\langle r^2(t) \rangle$) and
1122 > orientational correlation functions ($C_2(t)$) for each of the model
1123 > rigid bodies studied.  The circles are the results for microcanonical
1124 > simulations with explicit solvent molecules, while the other data sets
1125 > are results for Langevin dynamics using the different hydrodynamic
1126 > tensor approximations.  The Perrin model for the ellipsoids is
1127 > considered the ``exact'' hydrodynamic behavior (this can also be said
1128 > for the translational motion of the dumbbell operating under the bead
1129 > model). In most cases, the various hydrodynamics models reproduce
1130 > each other quantitatively.}
1131 > \label{fig:results}
1132 > \end{figure}
1133  
1134   \begin{table*}
1135   \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
1136   \begin{center}
1137 < \caption{}
1138 < \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1137 > \caption{Translational diffusion constants (D) for the model systems
1138 > calculated using microcanonical simulations (with explicit solvent),
1139 > theoretical predictions, and Langevin simulations (with implicit solvent).
1140 > Analytical solutions for the exactly-solved hydrodynamics models are
1141 > from Refs. \citen{Einstein05} (sphere), \citen{Perrin1934} and \citen{Perrin1936}
1142 > (ellipsoid), \citen{Stimson:1926qy} and \citen{Davis:1969uq}
1143 > (dumbbell). The other model systems have no known analytic solution.
1144 > All  diffusion constants are reported in units of $10^{-3}$ cm$^2$ / ps (=
1145 > $10^{-4}$ \AA$^2$  / fs). }
1146 > \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
1147   \hline
1148 < & & & & &Translation \\
1149 < \hline
1150 < & NVE &  & Theoretical & Langevin & \\
774 < \hline
775 < & $\eta$ & D & D & method & D \\
1148 > & \multicolumn{2}c{microcanonical simulation} & & \multicolumn{3}c{Theoretical} & Langevin \\
1149 > \cline{2-3} \cline{5-7}
1150 > model & $\eta$ (centipoise)  & D & & Analytical & method & Hydrodynamics & simulation \\
1151   \hline
1152 < sphere & 3.480159e-03 & 1.643135e-04 & 1.942779e-04 & exact & 1.982283e-04 \\
1153 < ellipsoid & 2.551262e-03 & 2.437492e-04 & 2.335756e-04 & exact & 2.374905e-04 \\
1154 < & 2.551262e-03  & 2.437492e-04 & 2.335756e-04 & rough shell & 2.284088e-04 \\
1155 < dumbell & 2.41276e-03  & 2.129432e-04 & 2.090239e-04 & bead model & 2.148098e-04 \\
1156 < & 2.41276e-03 & 2.129432e-04 & 2.090239e-04 & rough shell & 2.013219e-04 \\
1157 < banana & 2.9846e-03 & 1.527819e-04 &  & rough shell & 1.54807e-04 \\
1158 < lipid & 3.488661e-03 & 0.9562979e-04 &  & rough shell & 1.320987e-04 \\
1152 > sphere    & 0.279  & 3.06 & & 2.42 & exact       & 2.42 & 2.33 \\
1153 > ellipsoid & 0.255  & 2.44 & & 2.34 & exact       & 2.34 & 2.37 \\
1154 >          & 0.255  & 2.44 & & 2.34 & rough shell & 2.36 & 2.28 \\
1155 > dumbbell  & 0.308  & 2.06 & & 1.64 & bead model  & 1.65 & 1.62 \\
1156 >          & 0.308  & 2.06 & & 1.64 & rough shell & 1.59 & 1.62 \\
1157 > banana    & 0.298  & 1.53 & &      & rough shell & 1.56 & 1.55 \\
1158 > lipid     & 0.349  & 0.96 & &      & rough shell & 1.33 & 1.32 \\
1159   \end{tabular}
1160   \label{tab:translation}
1161   \end{center}
# Line 790 | Line 1165 | lipid & 3.488661e-03 & 0.9562979e-04 &  & rough shell
1165   \begin{table*}
1166   \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
1167   \begin{center}
1168 < \caption{}
1169 < \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1168 > \caption{Orientational relaxation times ($\tau$) for the model systems using
1169 > microcanonical simulation (with explicit solvent), theoretical
1170 > predictions, and Langevin simulations (with implicit solvent). All
1171 > relaxation times are for the rotational correlation function with
1172 > $\ell = 2$ and are reported in units of ps.  The ellipsoidal model has
1173 > an exact solution for the orientational correlation time due to
1174 > Perrin, but the other model systems have no known analytic solution.}
1175 > \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
1176   \hline
1177 < & & & & &Rotation \\
1178 < \hline
1179 < & NVE &  & Theoretical & Langevin & \\
799 < \hline
800 < & $\eta$ & $\tau_0$ & $\tau_0$ & method & $\tau_0$ \\
1177 > & \multicolumn{2}c{microcanonical simulation} & & \multicolumn{3}c{Theoretical} & Langevin \\
1178 > \cline{2-3} \cline{5-7}
1179 > model & $\eta$ (centipoise) & $\tau$ & & Perrin & method & Hydrodynamic  & simulation \\
1180   \hline
1181 < sphere & 3.480159e-03 &  & 1.208178e+04 & exact & 1.20628e+04 \\
1182 < ellipsoid & 2.551262e-03 & 4.66806e+04 & 2.198986e+04 & exact & 2.21507e+04 \\
1183 < & 2.551262e-03 & 4.66806e+04 & 2.198986e+04 & rough shell & 2.21714e+04 \\
1184 < dumbell & 2.41276e-03 & 1.42974e+04 &  & bead model & 7.12435e+04 \\
1185 < & 2.41276e-03 & 1.42974e+04 &  & rough shell & 7.04765e+04 \\
1186 < banana & 2.9846e-03 & 6.38323e+04 &  & rough shell & 7.0945e+04 \\
1187 < lipid & 3.488661e-03 & 7.79595e+04 &  & rough shell & 7.78886e+04 \\
1181 > sphere    & 0.279  &      & & 9.69 & exact       & 9.69 & 9.64 \\
1182 > ellipsoid & 0.255  & 46.7 & & 22.0 & exact       & 22.0 & 22.2 \\
1183 >          & 0.255  & 46.7 & & 22.0 & rough shell & 22.6 & 22.2 \\
1184 > dumbbell  & 0.308  & 14.1 & &      & bead model  & 50.0 & 50.1 \\
1185 >          & 0.308  & 14.1 & &      & rough shell & 41.5 & 41.3 \\
1186 > banana    & 0.298  & 63.8 & &      & rough shell & 70.9 & 70.9 \\
1187 > lipid     & 0.349  & 78.0 & &      & rough shell & 76.9 & 77.9 \\
1188 > \hline
1189   \end{tabular}
1190   \label{tab:rotation}
1191   \end{center}
1192   \end{minipage}
1193   \end{table*}
1194  
1195 < Langevin dynamics simulations are applied to study the formation of
1196 < the ripple phase of lipid membranes. The initial configuration is
1195 > \section{Application: A rigid-body lipid bilayer}
1196 >
1197 > The Langevin dynamics integrator was applied to study the formation of
1198 > corrugated structures emerging from simulations of the coarse grained
1199 > lipid molecular models presented above.  The initial configuration is
1200   taken from our molecular dynamics studies on lipid bilayers with
1201 < lennard-Jones sphere solvents. The solvent molecules are excluded from
1202 < the system, the experimental value of water viscosity is applied to
1203 < mimic the heat bath. Fig. XXX is the snapshot of the stable
1204 < configuration of the system, the ripple structure stayed stable after
1205 < 100 ns run. The efficiency of the simulation is increased by one order
1201 > lennard-Jones sphere solvents. The solvent molecules were excluded
1202 > from the system, and the experimental value for the viscosity of water
1203 > at 20C ($\eta = 1.00$ cp) was used to mimic the hydrodynamic effects
1204 > of the solvent.  The absence of explicit solvent molecules and the
1205 > stability of the integrator allowed us to take timesteps of 50 fs.  A
1206 > total simulation run time of 100 ns was sampled.
1207 > Fig. \ref{fig:bilayer} shows the configuration of the system after 100
1208 > ns, and the ripple structure remains stable during the entire
1209 > trajectory.  Compared with using explicit bead-model solvent
1210 > molecules, the efficiency of the simulation has increased by an order
1211   of magnitude.
1212  
825 \subsection{Langevin Dynamics of Banana Shaped Molecules}
826
827 In order to verify that Langevin dynamics can mimic the dynamics of
828 the systems absent of explicit solvents, we carried out two sets of
829 simulations and compare their dynamic properties.
830 Fig.~\ref{langevin:twoBanana} shows a snapshot of the simulation
831 made of 256 pentane molecules and two banana shaped molecules at
832 273~K. It has an equivalent implicit solvent system containing only
833 two banana shaped molecules with viscosity of 0.289 center poise. To
834 calculate the hydrodynamic properties of the banana shaped molecule,
835 we created a rough shell model (see Fig.~\ref{langevin:roughShell}),
836 in which the banana shaped molecule is represented as a ``shell''
837 made of 2266 small identical beads with size of 0.3 \AA on the
838 surface. Applying the procedure described in
839 Sec.~\ref{introEquation:ResistanceTensorArbitraryOrigin}, we
840 identified the center of resistance at (0 $\rm{\AA}$, 0.7482 $\rm{\AA}$,
841 -0.1988 $\rm{\AA}$), as well as the resistance tensor,
842 \[
843 \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
844 0.9261 & 0 & 0&0&0.08585&0.2057\\
845 0& 0.9270&-0.007063& 0.08585&0&0\\
846 0&-0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&0&0\\
847 0&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 0&0\\
848 0.08585&0&0&0&48.30&3.219&\\
849 0.2057&0&0&0&3.219&10.7373\\
850 \end{array}} \right).
851 \]
852 where the units for translational, translation-rotation coupling and rotational tensors are $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot \rm{\AA}^2}$, $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot \rm{\AA} \cdot rad}$ and $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot rad^2}$ respectively.
853 Curves of the velocity auto-correlation functions in
854 Fig.~\ref{langevin:vacf} were shown to match each other very well.
855 However, because of the stochastic nature, simulation using Langevin
856 dynamics was shown to decay slightly faster than MD. In order to
857 study the rotational motion of the molecules, we also calculated the
858 auto-correlation function of the principle axis of the second GB
859 particle, $u$. The discrepancy shown in Fig.~\ref{langevin:uacf} was
860 probably due to the reason that we used the experimental viscosity directly instead of calculating bulk viscosity from simulation.
861
1213   \begin{figure}
1214   \centering
1215 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{roughShell.pdf}
1216 < \caption[Rough shell model for banana shaped molecule]{Rough shell
1217 < model for banana shaped molecule.} \label{langevin:roughShell}
1215 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bilayer}
1216 > \caption[Snapshot of a bilayer of rigid-body models for lipids]{A
1217 > snapshot of a bilayer composed of rigid-body models for lipid
1218 > molecules evolving using the Langevin integrator described in this
1219 > work.} \label{fig:bilayer}
1220   \end{figure}
1221  
869 \begin{figure}
870 \centering
871 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{twoBanana.pdf}
872 \caption[Snapshot from Simulation of Two Banana Shaped Molecules and
873 256 Pentane Molecules]{Snapshot from simulation of two Banana shaped
874 molecules and 256 pentane molecules.} \label{langevin:twoBanana}
875 \end{figure}
876
877 \begin{figure}
878 \centering
879 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{vacf.pdf}
880 \caption[Plots of Velocity Auto-correlation Functions]{Velocity
881 auto-correlation functions of NVE (explicit solvent) in blue and
882 Langevin dynamics (implicit solvent) in red.} \label{langevin:vacf}
883 \end{figure}
884
885 \begin{figure}
886 \centering
887 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{uacf.pdf}
888 \caption[Auto-correlation functions of the principle axis of the
889 middle GB particle]{Auto-correlation functions of the principle axis
890 of the middle GB particle of NVE (blue) and Langevin dynamics
891 (red).} \label{langevin:uacf}
892 \end{figure}
893
1222   \section{Conclusions}
1223  
1224   We have presented a new Langevin algorithm by incorporating the
1225   hydrodynamics properties of arbitrary shaped molecules into an
1226 < advanced symplectic integration scheme. The temperature control
1227 < ability of this algorithm was demonstrated by a set of simulations
1228 < with different viscosities. It was also shown to have significant
1229 < advantage of producing rapid thermal equilibration over
902 < Nos\'{e}-Hoover method. Further studies in systems involving banana
903 < shaped molecules illustrated that the dynamic properties could be
904 < preserved by using this new algorithm as an implicit solvent model.
1226 > advanced symplectic integration scheme. Further studies in systems
1227 > involving banana shaped molecules illustrated that the dynamic
1228 > properties could be preserved by using this new algorithm as an
1229 > implicit solvent model.
1230  
1231  
1232   \section{Acknowledgments}
# Line 911 | Line 1236 | of Notre Dame.
1236   of Notre Dame.
1237   \newpage
1238  
1239 < \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
1239 > \bibliographystyle{jcp}
1240   \bibliography{langevin}
1241  
1242   \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines