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

Comparing trunk/langevinHull/langevinHull.tex (file contents):
Revision 3652 by gezelter, Mon Oct 18 18:27:24 2010 UTC vs.
Revision 3653 by gezelter, Tue Oct 19 16:13:01 2010 UTC

# Line 80 | Line 80 | transformation to adjust the box volume.
80   motion,\cite{Hoover85,ANDERSEN:1980vn,Sturgeon:2000kx} the Berendsen
81   pressure bath,\cite{ISI:A1984TQ73500045} and the Langevin
82   Piston,\cite{FELLER:1995fk,Jakobsen:2005uq} all utilize coordinate
83 < transformation to adjust the box volume.
84 <
85 < As long as the material in the simulation box is essentially a bulk
86 < liquid which has a relatively uniform compressibility, the standard
83 > transformation to adjust the box volume.  As long as the material in
84 > the simulation box is essentially a bulk-like liquid which has a
85 > relatively uniform compressibility, the standard affine transform
86   approach provides an excellent way of adjusting the volume of the
87   system and applying pressure directly via the interactions between
88 < atomic sites.  
88 > atomic sites.
89  
90 < The problem with these approaches becomes apparent when the material
90 > The problem with this approach becomes apparent when the material
91   being simulated is an inhomogeneous mixture in which portions of the
92   simulation box are incompressible relative to other portions.
93   Examples include simulations of metallic nanoparticles in liquid
# Line 97 | Line 96 | enough to avoid collisions in the incompressible regio
96   atomic coordinates will either cause numerical instability when the
97   sites in the incompressible medium collide with each other, or lead to
98   inefficient sampling of system volumes if the barostat is set slow
99 < enough to avoid collisions in the incompressible region.
99 > enough to avoid the instabilities in the incompressible region.
100  
101   \begin{figure}
102   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{AffineScale2}
# Line 111 | Line 110 | Additionally, one may often wish to simulate explicitl
110   \label{affineScale}
111   \end{figure}
112  
113 < Additionally, one may often wish to simulate explicitly non-periodic
114 < systems, and the constraint that a periodic box must be used to
113 > One may also wish to avoid affine transform periodic boundary methods
114 > to simulate {\it explicitly non-periodic systems} under constant
115 > pressure conditions. The use of periodic boxes to enforce a system
116 > volume either requires effective solute concentrations that are much
117 > higher than desirable, or unreasonable system sizes to avoid this
118 > effect.  For example, calculations using typical hydration shells
119 > solvating a protein under periodic boundary conditions are quite
120 > expensive. [CALCULATE EFFECTIVE PROTEIN CONCENTRATIONS IN TYPICAL
121 > SIMULATIONS]
122  
123 < Explicitly non-periodic systems
123 > There have been a number of other approaches to explicit
124 > non-periodicity that focus on constant or nearly-constant {\it volume}
125 > conditions while maintaining bulk-like behavior.  Berkowitz and
126 > McCammon introduced a stochastic (Langevin) boundary layer inside a
127 > region of fixed molecules which effectively enforces constant
128 > temperature and volume (NVT) conditions.\cite{Berkowitz1982} In this
129 > approach, the stochastic and fixed regions were defined relative to a
130 > central atom.  Brooks and Karplus extended this method to include
131 > deformable stochastic boundaries.\cite{iii:6312} The stochastic
132 > boundary approach has been used widely for protein
133 > simulations. [CITATIONS NEEDED]
134  
135 < Elastic Bag
135 > The electrostatic and dispersive behavior near the boundary has long
136 > been a cause for concern.  King and Warshel introduced a surface
137 > constrained all-atom solvent (SCAAS) which included polarization
138 > effects of a fixed spherical boundary to mimic bulk-like behavior
139 > without periodic boundaries.\cite{king:3647} In the SCAAS model, a
140 > layer of fixed solvent molecules surrounds the solute and any explicit
141 > solvent, and this in turn is surrounded by a continuum dielectric.
142 > MORE HERE.  WHAT DID THEY FIND?
143  
144 < Spherical Boundary approaches
144 > Beglov and Roux developed a boundary model in which the hard sphere
145 > boundary has a radius that varies with the instantaneous configuration
146 > of the solute (and solvent) molecules.\cite{beglov:9050} This model
147 > contains a clear pressure and surface tension contribution to the free
148 > energy which XXX.
149  
150 + Restraining {\it potentials} introduce repulsive potentials at the
151 + surface of a sphere or other geometry.  The solute and any explicit
152 + solvent are therefore restrained inside this potential.  Often the
153 + potentials include a weak short-range attraction to maintain the
154 + correct density at the boundary.  Beglov and Roux have also introduced
155 + a restraining boundary potential which relaxes dynamically depending
156 + on the solute geometry and the force the explicit system exerts on the
157 + shell.\cite{Beglov:1995fk}
158 +
159 + Recently, Krilov {\it et al.} introduced a flexible boundary model
160 + that uses a Lennard-Jones potential between the solvent molecules and
161 + a boundary which is determined dynamically from the position of the
162 + nearest solute atom.\cite{LiY._jp046852t,Zhu:xw} This approach allows
163 + the confining potential to prevent solvent molecules from migrating
164 + too far from the solute surface, while providing a weak attractive
165 + force pulling the solvent molecules towards a fictitious bulk solvent.
166 + Although this approach is appealing and has physical motivation,
167 + nanoparticles do not deform far from their original geometries even at
168 + temperatures which vaporize the nearby solvent. For the systems like
169 + the one described, the flexible boundary model will be nearly
170 + identical to a fixed-volume restraining potential.
171 +
172 + The approach of Kohanoff, Caro, and Finnis is the most promising of
173 + the methods for introducing both constant pressure and temperature
174 + into non-periodic simulations.\cite{Kohanoff:2005qm,Baltazar:2006ru}
175 + This method is based on standard Langevin dynamics, but the Brownian
176 + or random forces are allowed to act only on peripheral atoms and exert
177 + force in a direction that is inward-facing relative to the facets of a
178 + closed bounding surface.  The statistical distribution of the random
179 + forces are uniquely tied to the pressure in the external reservoir, so
180 + the method can be shown to sample the isobaric-isothermal ensemble.
181 + Kohanoff {\it et al.} used a Delaunay tessellation to generate a
182 + bounding surface surrounding the outermost atoms in the simulated
183 + system.  This is not the only possible triangulated outer surface, but
184 + guarantees that all of the random forces point inward towards the
185 + cluster.
186 +
187 + In the following sections, we extend and generalize the approach of
188 + Kohanoff, Caro, and Finnis. The new method, which we are calling the
189 + ``Langevin Hull'' applies the external pressure, Langevin drag, and
190 + random forces on the facets of the {\it hull itself} instead of the
191 + atomic sites comprising the vertices of the hull.  This allows us to
192 + decouple the external pressure contribution from the drag and random
193 + force.  Section \ref{sec:meth}
194 +
195   \section{Methodology}
196 + \label{sec:meth}
197  
198   We have developed a new method which uses a constant pressure and
199   temperature bath.  This bath interacts only with the objects that are
# Line 191 | Line 264 | and $\Xi_f(t)$ is a ($3 \times 3$) hydrodynamic tensor
264   \begin{equation}
265   {\mathbf v}_f(t) =  \frac{1}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} {\mathbf v}_i,
266   \end{equation}
267 < and $\Xi_f(t)$ is a ($3 \times 3$) hydrodynamic tensor that depends on
268 < the geometry and surface area of facet $f$ and the viscosity of the
269 < fluid (See Appendix A).  The hydrodynamic tensor is related to the
270 < fluctuations of the random force, $\mathbf{R}(t)$, by the
271 < fluctuation-dissipation theorem,
267 > and $\Xi_f(t)$ is an approximate ($3 \times 3$) hydrodynamic tensor
268 > that depends on the geometry and surface area of facet $f$ and the
269 > viscosity of the fluid (See Appendix A).  The hydrodynamic tensor is
270 > related to the fluctuations of the random force, $\mathbf{R}(t)$, by
271 > the fluctuation-dissipation theorem,
272   \begin{eqnarray}
273   \left< {\mathbf R}_f(t) \right> & = & 0 \\
274   \left<{\mathbf R}_f(t) {\mathbf R}_f^T(t^\prime)\right> & = & 2 k_B T\
# Line 223 | Line 296 | have the correct properties required by Eq. (\ref{eq:r
296   where $\delta t$ is the timestep in use during the simulation. The
297   random force, ${\bf R}_{f} = {\bf S} {\bf Z}$, can be shown to
298   have the correct properties required by Eq. (\ref{eq:randomForce}).
299 +
300 + Our treatment of the hydrodynamic tensor must be approximate.  $\Xi$
301 + for a triangular plate would normally be treated as a $6 \times 6$
302 + tensor that includes translational and rotational drag as well as
303 + translational-rotational coupling. The computation of hydrodynamic
304 + tensors for rigid bodies has been detailed
305 + elsewhere,\cite{JoseGarciadelaTorre02012000,Garcia-de-la-Torre:2001wd,GarciadelaTorreJ2002,Sun2008}
306 + but the standard approach involving bead approximations would be
307 + prohibitively expensive if it were recomputed at each step in a
308 + molecular dynamics simulation.
309 +
310 + We are utilizing an approximate hydrodynamic tensor obtained by first
311 + constructing the Oseen tensor for the interaction of the centroid of
312 + the facet ($f$) with each of the subfacets $j$,
313 + \begin{equation}
314 + T_{jf}=\frac{A_j}{8\pi\eta R_{jf}}\left(I +
315 +  \frac{\mathbf{R}_{jf}\mathbf{R}_{jf}^T}{R_{jf}^2}\right)
316 + \end{equation}
317 + Here, $A_j$ is the area of subfacet $j$ which is a triangle containing
318 + two of the vertices of the facet along with the centroid.
319 + $\mathbf{R}_{jf}$ is the vector between the centroid of facet $f$ and
320 + the centroid of sub-facet $j$, and $I$ is the ($3 \times 3$) identity
321 + matrix.  $\eta$ is the viscosity of the external bath.
322  
323 + \begin{figure}
324 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{hydro}
325 + \caption{The hydrodynamic tensor $\Xi$ for a facet comprising sites $i$,
326 +  $j$, and $k$ is constructed using Oseen tensor contributions
327 +  between the centoid of the facet $f$ and each of the sub-facets
328 +  ($i,f,j$), ($j,f,k$), and ($k,f,i$). The centroids of the sub-facets
329 +  are located at $1$, $2$, and $3$, and the area of each sub-facet is
330 +  easily computed using half the cross product of two of the edges.}
331 + \label{hydro}
332 + \end{figure}
333 +
334 + The Oseen tensors for each of the sub-facets are summed, and the
335 + resulting matrix is inverted to give a $3 \times 3$ hydrodynamic
336 + tensor for translations of the triangular plate,
337 + \begin{equation}
338 + \Xi_f(t) =\left[\sum_{i=1}^3 T_{if}\right]^{-1}.
339 + \end{equation}
340   We have implemented this method by extending the Langevin dynamics
341 < integrator in our group code, OpenMD.\cite{Meineke2005,openmd}  
341 > integrator in our group code, OpenMD.\cite{Meineke2005,openmd} There
342 > is a moderate penalty for computing the convex hull at each step in
343 > the molecular dynamics simulation (HOW MUCH?), but the convex hull is
344 > remarkably easy to parallelize on distributed memory machines (see
345 > Appendix B).
346  
347   \section{Tests \& Applications}
348 + \label{sec:tests}
349  
350   \subsection{Bulk modulus of gold nanoparticles}
351  
# Line 334 | Line 452 | The orientational preference exhibited by hull molecul
452  
453   \section{Appendix A: Hydrodynamic tensor for triangular facets}
454  
337 \begin{figure}
338 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{hydro}
339 \caption{Hydro}
340 \label{hydro}
341 \end{figure}
342
343 \begin{equation}
344 \Xi_f(t) =\left[\sum_{i=1}^3 T_{if}\right]^{-1}
345 \end{equation}
346
347 \begin{equation}
348 T_{if}=\frac{A_i}{8\pi\eta R_{if}}\left(I +
349  \frac{\mathbf{R}_{if}\mathbf{R}_{if}^T}{R_{if}^2}\right)
350 \end{equation}
351
455   \section{Appendix B: Computing Convex Hulls on Parallel Computers}
456  
457   \section{Acknowledgments}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines