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

Comparing trunk/mattDisertation/oopse.tex (file contents):
Revision 1071 by mmeineke, Thu Feb 26 21:55:43 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 1083 by mmeineke, Fri Mar 5 00:07:19 2004 UTC

# Line 312 | Line 312 | dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye
312   \begin{figure}
313   \centering
314   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{lipidModel.eps}
315 < \caption{A representation of the lipid model. $\phi$ is the torsion angle, $\theta$ %
315 > \caption[A representation of a lipid model in {\sc duff}]{A representation of the lipid model. $\phi$ is the torsion angle, $\theta$ %
316   is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the head group, and n
317   is the chain length.}
318   \label{oopseFig:lipidModel}
# Line 631 | Line 631 | where $F_{i} $ is the embedding function that equates
631   \phi_{ij}({\bf r}_{ij})  \\
632   \rho_{i}  & = & \sum_{j \neq i} f_{j}({\bf r}_{ij})
633   \end{eqnarray}
634 < where $F_{i} $ is the embedding function that equates the energy required to embed a
635 < positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear superposition of
636 < spherically averaged atomic electron densities given by
637 < $\rho_{i}$.  $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
638 < between atoms $i$ and $j$. In the original formulation of
639 < {\sc eam}\cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
640 < in later refinements to EAM have shown that non-uniqueness between $F$
641 < and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89}
642 < There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
643 < summations in the {\sc eam} equation to the few dozen atoms
634 > where $F_{i} $ is the embedding function that equates the energy
635 > required to embed a positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear
636 > superposition of spherically averaged atomic electron densities given
637 > by $\rho_{i}$.  $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise
638 > interaction between atoms $i$ and $j$. In the original formulation of
639 > {\sc eam}\cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term,
640 > however in later refinements to {\sc eam} have shown that non-uniqueness
641 > between $F$ and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for
642 > $\phi$.\cite{Daw89} There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which
643 > limits the summations in the {\sc eam} equation to the few dozen atoms
644   surrounding atom $i$ for both the density $\rho$ and pairwise $\phi$
645 < interactions. Foiles et al. fit EAM potentials for fcc metals Cu, Ag, Au, Ni, Pd, Pt and alloys of these metals\cite{FBD86}. These potential fits are in the DYNAMO 86 format and are included with {\sc oopse}.
645 > interactions. Foiles \emph{et al}.~fit {\sc eam} potentials for the fcc
646 > metals Cu, Ag, Au, Ni, Pd, Pt and alloys of these metals.\cite{FBD86}
647 > These fits, are included in {\sc oopse}.
648  
647
649   \subsection{\label{oopseSec:pbc}Periodic Boundary Conditions}
650  
651   \newcommand{\roundme}{\operatorname{round}}
# Line 658 | Line 659 | use a $3 \times 3$ matrix, $\mathbf{H}$, to describe t
659   simulation box is large enough to avoid ``feeling'' the symmetries of
660   the periodic lattice, surface effects can be ignored. The available
661   periodic cells in OOPSE are cubic, orthorhombic and parallelepiped. We
662 < use a $3 \times 3$ matrix, $\mathbf{H}$, to describe the shape and
663 < size of the simulation box. $\mathbf{H}$ is defined:
662 > use a $3 \times 3$ matrix, $\mathsf{H}$, to describe the shape and
663 > size of the simulation box. $\mathsf{H}$ is defined:
664   \begin{equation}
665 < \mathbf{H} = ( \mathbf{h}_x, \mathbf{h}_y, \mathbf{h}_z )
665 > \mathsf{H} = ( \mathbf{h}_x, \mathbf{h}_y, \mathbf{h}_z )
666   \end{equation}
667   Where $\mathbf{h}_j$ is the column vector of the $j$th axis of the
668   box.  During the course of the simulation both the size and shape of
669 < the box can be changed to allow volume fluctations when constraining
669 > the box can be changed to allow volume fluctuations when constraining
670   the pressure.
671  
672   A real space vector, $\mathbf{r}$ can be transformed in to a box space
673   vector, $\mathbf{s}$, and back through the following transformations:
674   \begin{align}
675 < \mathbf{s} &= \mathbf{H}^{-1} \mathbf{r} \\
676 < \mathbf{r} &= \mathbf{H} \mathbf{s}
675 > \mathbf{s} &= \mathsf{H}^{-1} \mathbf{r} \\
676 > \mathbf{r} &= \mathsf{H} \mathbf{s}
677   \end{align}
678   The vector $\mathbf{s}$ is now a vector expressed as the number of box
679   lengths in the $\mathbf{h}_x$, $\mathbf{h}_y$, and $\mathbf{h}_z$
# Line 700 | Line 701 | transforming back to real space,
701   Finally, we obtain the minimum image coordinates $\mathbf{r}^{\prime}$ by
702   transforming back to real space,
703   \begin{equation}
704 < \mathbf{r}^{\prime}=\mathbf{H}^{-1}\mathbf{s}^{\prime}%
704 > \mathbf{r}^{\prime}=\mathsf{H}^{-1}\mathbf{s}^{\prime}%
705   \end{equation}
706   In this way, particles are allowed to diffuse freely in $\mathbf{r}$,
707   but their minimum images, $\mathbf{r}^{\prime}$ are used to compute
708 < the interatomic forces.
708 > the inter-atomic forces.
709  
710  
711   \section{\label{oopseSec:IOfiles}Input and Output Files}
# Line 740 | Line 741 | ensemble = "NVE"; // specify the simulation enesemble
741   initialConfig = "./argon.init";
742  
743   forceField = "LJ";
744 < ensemble = "NVE"; // specify the simulation enesemble
744 > ensemble = "NVE"; // specify the simulation ensemble
745   dt = 1.0;         // the time step for integration
746   runTime = 1e3;    // the total simulation run time
747   sampleTime = 100; // trajectory file frequency
# Line 781 | Line 782 | molecule{
782  
783   #include "argon.mdl"
784  
784 molecule{
785  name = "Ar";
786  nAtoms = 1;
787  atom[0]{
788    type="Ar";
789    position( 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 );
790  }
791 }
792
785   nComponents = 1;
786   component{
787    type = "Ar";
# Line 819 | Line 811 | output files.
811   entities are written out using quanternions, to save space in the
812   output files.
813  
814 < \begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[The format of the coordinate files]Shows the format of the coordinate files. The fist line is the number of atoms. The second line begins with the time stamp followed by the three $\mathbf{H}$ column vectors. The next lines are the atomic coordinates for all atoms in the system. First is the name followed by position, velocity, quanternions, and lastly angular momentum.},label=sch:dumpFormat]
814 > \begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[The format of the coordinate files]Shows the format of the coordinate files. The fist line is the number of atoms. The second line begins with the time stamp followed by the three $\mathsf{H}$ column vectors. It is important to note, that for extended system ensembles, additional information pertinent to the integrators may be stored on this line as well.. The next lines are the atomic coordinates for all atoms in the system. First is the name followed by position, velocity, quanternions, and lastly angular velocities.},label=sch:dumpFormat]
815  
816   nAtoms
817   time; Hxx Hyx Hzx; Hxy Hyy Hzy; Hxz Hyz Hzz;
# Line 854 | Line 846 | simulation. The {\sc oopse} package provides a program
846  
847   As was stated in Sec.~\ref{oopseSec:coordFiles}, an initialization
848   file is needed to provide the starting coordinates for a
849 < simulation. The {\sc oopse} package provides a program called
850 < \texttt{sysBuilder} to aid in the creation of the \texttt{.init}
851 < file. \texttt{sysBuilder} uses {\sc bass}, and will recognize
849 > simulation. The {\sc oopse} package provides several system building
850 > programs to aid in the creation of the \texttt{.init}
851 > file. The programs use {\sc bass}, and will recognize
852   arguments and parameters in the \texttt{.bass} file that would
853   otherwise be ignored by the simulation.
854  
# Line 984 | Line 976 | explicit constraint forces on the equations of
976   formulation of the {\sc shake} method\cite{ryckaert77} of iteratively
977   solving the Lagrange multipliers of constraint. The system of lagrange
978   multipliers allows one to reformulate the equations of motion with
979 < explicit constraint forces on the equations of
988 < motion.\cite{fowles99:lagrange}
979 > explicit constraint forces.\cite{fowles99:lagrange}
980  
981 < Consider a system described by qoordinates $q_1$ and $q_2$ subject to an
981 > Consider a system described by coordinates $q_1$ and $q_2$ subject to an
982   equation of constraint:
983   \begin{equation}
984   \sigma(q_1, q_2,t) = 0
# Line 1059 | Line 1050 | done, as the matrix inversion neccassary to solve the
1050   In a simulation, this would involve the solution of a set of $(m + n)$
1051   number of equations. Where $m$ is the number of constraints, and $n$
1052   is the number of constrained coordinates. In practice, this is not
1053 < done, as the matrix inversion neccassary to solve the system of
1053 > done, as the matrix inversion necessary to solve the system of
1054   equations would be very time consuming to solve. Additionally, the
1055   numerical error in the solution of the set of $\lambda$'s would be
1056   compounded by the error inherent in propagating by the Velocity Verlet
1057 < algorithm ($\Delta t^4$). The verlet propagation error is negligible
1058 < in an unconstrained system, as one is interested in the statisitics of
1057 > algorithm ($\Delta t^4$). The Verlet propagation error is negligible
1058 > in an unconstrained system, as one is interested in the statistics of
1059   the run, and not that the run be numerically exact to the ``true''
1060   integration. This relates back to the ergodic hypothesis that a time
1061 < integral of a valid trajectory will still give the correct enesemble
1061 > integral of a valid trajectory will still give the correct ensemble
1062   average. However, in the case of constraints, if the equations of
1063   motion leave the ``true'' trajectory, they are departing from the
1064   constrained surface. The method that is used, is to iteratively solve
# Line 1086 | Line 1077 | be perpindicular to the bond vector, so that the bond
1077   Eq.~\ref{oopseEq:c1} is the set of bond constraints, where $d_{ij}$ is
1078   the constrained distance between atom $i$ and
1079   $j$. Eq.~\ref{oopseEq:c2} constrains the velocities of $i$ and $j$ to
1080 < be perpindicular to the bond vector, so that the bond can neither grow
1080 > be perpendicular to the bond vector, so that the bond can neither grow
1081   nor shrink. The constrained dynamics equations become:
1082   \begin{equation}
1083   m_i \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_i = \mathbf{F}_i + \mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_i
1084   \label{oopseEq:r1}
1085   \end{equation}
1086 < Where,
1086 > Where,$\mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_i$ are the forces of constraint on $i$,
1087 > and are defined:
1088   \begin{equation}
1089   \mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_i = - \sum_j \lambda_{ij}(t)\,\nabla \sigma_{ij}
1090   \label{oopseEq:r2}
# Line 1111 | Line 1103 | In Velocity Verlet, if $\Delta t = h$, the propagation
1103          \mathbf{F}_i(t+h) + \mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_{Vi}(t+h) \Bigr] %
1104          \label{oopseEq:vv2}
1105   \end{align}
1106 + Where:
1107 + \begin{align}
1108 + \mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_{Ri}(t) &=
1109 +        -2 \sum_j \lambda_{Rij}(t) \mathbf{r}_{ij}(t) \\
1110 + %
1111 + \mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_{Vi}(t+h) &=
1112 +        -2 \sum_j \lambda_{Vij}(t+h) \mathbf{r}(t+h)
1113 + \end{align}
1114 + Next, define:
1115 + \begin{align}
1116 + g_{ij} &= h \lambda_{Rij}(t) \\
1117 + k_{ij} &= h \lambda_{Vij}(t+h) \\
1118 + \mathbf{q}_i &= \mathbf{\dot{r}}_i(t) + \frac{h}{2m_i} \mathbf{F}_i(t)
1119 +        - \frac{1}{m_i}\sum_j g_{ij}\mathbf{r}_{ij}(t)
1120 + \end{align}
1121 + Using these definitions, Eq.~\ref{oopseEq:vv1} and \ref{oopseEq:vv2}
1122 + can be rewritten as,
1123 + \begin{align}
1124 + \mathbf{r}_i(t+h) &= \mathbf{r}_i(t) + h \mathbf{q}_i \\
1125 + %
1126 + \mathbf{\dot{r}}(t+h) &= \mathbf{q}_i + \frac{h}{2m_i}\mathbf{F}_i(t+h)
1127 +        -\frac{1}{m_i}\sum_j k_{ij} \mathbf{r}_{ij}(t+h)
1128 + \end{align}
1129  
1130 + To integrate the equations of motion, the {\sc rattle} algorithm first
1131 + solves for $\mathbf{r}(t+h)$. Let,
1132 + \begin{equation}
1133 + \mathbf{q}_i = \mathbf{\dot{r}}(t) + \frac{h}{2m_i}\mathbf{F}_i(t)
1134 + \end{equation}
1135 + Here $\mathbf{q}_i$ corresponds to an initial unconstrained move. Next
1136 + pick a constraint $j$, and let,
1137 + \begin{equation}
1138 + \mathbf{s} = \mathbf{r}_i(t) + h\mathbf{q}_i(t)
1139 +        - \mathbf{r}_j(t) + h\mathbf{q}_j(t)
1140 + \label{oopseEq:ra1}
1141 + \end{equation}
1142 + If
1143 + \begin{equation}
1144 + \Big| |\mathbf{s}|^2 - d_{ij}^2 \Big| > \text{tolerance},
1145 + \end{equation}
1146 + then the constraint is unsatisfied, and corrections are made to the
1147 + positions. First we define a test corrected configuration as,
1148 + \begin{align}
1149 + \mathbf{r}_i^T(t+h) = \mathbf{r}_i(t) + h\biggl[\mathbf{q}_i -
1150 +        g_{ij}\,\frac{\mathbf{r}_{ij}(t)}{m_i} \biggr] \\
1151 + %
1152 + \mathbf{r}_j^T(t+h) = \mathbf{r}_j(t) + h\biggl[\mathbf{q}_j +
1153 +        g_{ij}\,\frac{\mathbf{r}_{ij}(t)}{m_j} \biggr]
1154 + \end{align}
1155 + And we chose $g_{ij}$ such that, $|\mathbf{r}_i^T - \mathbf{r}_j^T|^2
1156 + = d_{ij}^2$. Solving the quadratic for $g_{ij}$ we obtain the
1157 + approximation,
1158 + \begin{equation}
1159 + g_{ij} = \frac{(s^2 - d^2)}{2h[\mathbf{s}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij}(t)]
1160 +        (\frac{1}{m_i} + \frac{1}{m_j})}
1161 + \end{equation}
1162 + Although not an exact solution for $g_{ij}$, as this is an iterative
1163 + scheme overall, the eventual solution will converge. With a trial
1164 + $g_{ij}$, the new $\mathbf{q}$'s become,
1165 + \begin{align}
1166 + \mathbf{q}_i &= \mathbf{q}^{\text{old}}_i - g_{ij}\,
1167 +        \frac{\mathbf{r}_{ij}(t)}{m_i} \\
1168 + %
1169 + \mathbf{q}_j &= \mathbf{q}^{\text{old}}_j + g_{ij}\,
1170 +        \frac{\mathbf{r}_{ij}(t)}{m_j}
1171 + \end{align}
1172 + The whole algorithm is then repeated from Eq.~\ref{oopseEq:ra1} until
1173 + all constraints are satisfied.
1174  
1175 + The second step of {\sc rattle}, is to then update the velocities. The
1176 + step starts with,
1177 + \begin{equation}
1178 + \mathbf{\dot{r}}_i(t+h) = \mathbf{q}_i + \frac{h}{2m_i}\mathbf{F}_i(t+h)
1179 + \end{equation}
1180 + Next we pick a constraint $j$, and calculate the dot product $\ell$.
1181 + \begin{equation}
1182 + \ell = \mathbf{r}_{ij}(t+h) \cdot \mathbf{\dot{r}}_{ij}(t+h)
1183 + \label{oopseEq:rv1}
1184 + \end{equation}
1185 + Here if constraint Eq.~\ref{oopseEq:c2} holds, $\ell$ should be
1186 + zero. Therefore if $\ell$ is greater than some tolerance, then
1187 + corrections are made to the $i$ and $j$ velocities.
1188 + \begin{align}
1189 + \mathbf{\dot{r}}_i^T &= \mathbf{\dot{r}}_i(t+h) - k_{ij}
1190 +        \frac{\mathbf{\dot{r}}_{ij}(t+h)}{m_i} \\
1191 + %
1192 + \mathbf{\dot{r}}_j^T &= \mathbf{\dot{r}}_j(t+h) + k_{ij}
1193 +        \frac{\mathbf{\dot{r}}_{ij}(t+h)}{m_j}
1194 + \end{align}
1195 + Like in the previous step, we select a value for $k_{ij}$ such that
1196 + $\ell$ is zero.
1197 + \begin{equation}
1198 + k_{ij} = \frac{\ell}{d^2_{ij}(\frac{1}{m_i} + \frac{1}{m_j})}
1199 + \end{equation}
1200 + The test velocities, $\mathbf{\dot{r}}^T_i$ and
1201 + $\mathbf{\dot{r}}^T_j$, then replace their respective velocities, and
1202 + the algorithm is iterated from Eq.~\ref{oopseEq:rv1} until all
1203 + constraints are satisfied.
1204  
1205 +
1206   \subsection{\label{oopseSec:zcons}Z-Constraint Method}
1207  
1208 < Based on fluctuation-dissipation theorem, a force auto-correlation
1209 < method was developed to investigate the dynamics of ions inside the ion
1210 < channels.\cite{Roux91} Time-dependent friction coefficient can be calculated
1211 < from the deviation of the instantaneous force from its mean force.
1212 <
1124 < %
1125 <
1208 > Based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, a force auto-correlation
1209 > method was developed by Roux and Karplus to investigate the dynamics
1210 > of ions inside ion channels.\cite{Roux91} The time-dependent friction
1211 > coefficient can be calculated from the deviation of the instantaneous
1212 > force from its mean force.
1213   \begin{equation}
1214   \xi(z,t)=\langle\delta F(z,t)\delta F(z,0)\rangle/k_{B}T
1215   \end{equation}
# Line 1132 | Line 1219 | If the time-dependent friction decay rapidly, static f
1219   \end{equation}
1220  
1221  
1222 < If the time-dependent friction decay rapidly, static friction coefficient can
1223 < be approximated by%
1137 <
1222 > If the time-dependent friction decays rapidly, the static friction
1223 > coefficient can be approximated by
1224   \begin{equation}
1225   \xi^{static}(z)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\langle\delta F(z,t)\delta F(z,0)\rangle dt
1226   \end{equation}
1227 <
1142 <
1143 < Hence, diffusion constant can be estimated by
1227 > Therefore, the diffusion constant can then be estimated by
1228   \begin{equation}
1229   D(z)=\frac{k_{B}T}{\xi^{static}(z)}=\frac{(k_{B}T)^{2}}{\int_{0}^{\infty
1230   }\langle\delta F(z,t)\delta F(z,0)\rangle dt}%
1231   \end{equation}
1232  
1233 <
1234 < \bigskip Z-Constraint method, which fixed the z coordinates of the molecules
1235 < with respect to the center of the mass of the system, was proposed to obtain
1236 < the forces required in force auto-correlation method.\cite{Marrink94} However,
1237 < simply resetting the coordinate will move the center of the mass of the whole
1238 < system. To avoid this problem,  a new method was used at {\sc oopse}. Instead of
1239 < resetting the coordinate, we reset the forces of z-constraint molecules as
1240 < well as subtract the total constraint forces from the rest of the system after
1241 < force calculation at each time step.
1233 > The Z-Constraint method, which fixes the z coordinates of the
1234 > molecules with respect to the center of the mass of the system, has
1235 > been a method suggested to obtain the forces required for the force
1236 > auto-correlation calculation.\cite{Marrink94} However, simply resetting the
1237 > coordinate will move the center of the mass of the whole system. To
1238 > avoid this problem, a new method was used in {\sc oopse}. Instead of
1239 > resetting the coordinate, we reset the forces of z-constraint
1240 > molecules as well as subtract the total constraint forces from the
1241 > rest of the system after force calculation at each time step.
1242   \begin{align}
1243   F_{\alpha i}&=0\\
1244   V_{\alpha i}&=V_{\alpha i}-\frac{\sum\limits_{i}M_{_{\alpha i}}V_{\alpha i}}{\sum\limits_{i}M_{_{\alpha i}}}\\
# Line 1162 | Line 1246 | At the very beginning of the simulation, the molecules
1246   V_{\alpha i}&=V_{\alpha i}-\frac{\sum\limits_{\alpha}\sum\limits_{i}M_{_{\alpha i}}V_{\alpha i}}{\sum\limits_{\alpha}\sum\limits_{i}M_{_{\alpha i}}}
1247   \end{align}
1248  
1249 < At the very beginning of the simulation, the molecules may not be at its
1250 < constraint position. To move the z-constraint molecule to the specified
1251 < position, a simple harmonic potential is used%
1168 <
1249 > At the very beginning of the simulation, the molecules may not be at their
1250 > constrained positions. To move a z-constrained molecule to its specified
1251 > position, a simple harmonic potential is used
1252   \begin{equation}
1253 < U(t)=\frac{1}{2}k_{Harmonic}(z(t)-z_{cons})^{2}%
1253 > U(t)=\frac{1}{2}k_{\text{Harmonic}}(z(t)-z_{\text{cons}})^{2}%
1254   \end{equation}
1255 < where $k_{Harmonic}$\bigskip\ is the harmonic force constant, $z(t)$ is
1256 < current z coordinate of the center of mass of the z-constraint molecule, and
1257 < $z_{cons}$ is the restraint position. Therefore, the harmonic force operated
1258 < on the z-constraint molecule at time $t$ can be calculated by%
1255 > where $k_{\text{Harmonic}}$ is the harmonic force constant, $z(t)$ is the
1256 > current $z$ coordinate of the center of mass of the constrained molecule, and
1257 > $z_{\text{cons}}$ is the constrained position. The harmonic force operating
1258 > on the z-constrained molecule at time $t$ can be calculated by
1259   \begin{equation}
1260 < F_{z_{Harmonic}}(t)=-\frac{\partial U(t)}{\partial z(t)}=-k_{Harmonic}%
1261 < (z(t)-z_{cons})
1260 > F_{z_{\text{Harmonic}}}(t)=-\frac{\partial U(t)}{\partial z(t)}=
1261 >        -k_{\text{Harmonic}}(z(t)-z_{\text{cons}})
1262   \end{equation}
1180 Worthy of mention, other kinds of potential functions can also be used to
1181 drive the z-constraint molecule.
1263  
1264   \section{\label{oopseSec:props}Trajectory Analysis}
1265  
1266   \subsection{\label{oopseSec:staticProps}Static Property Analysis}
1267  
1268   The static properties of the trajectories are analyzed with the
1269 < program \texttt{staticProps}. The code is capable of calculating the following
1270 < pair correlations between species A and B:
1271 < \begin{itemize}
1272 <        \item $g_{\text{AB}}(r)$: Eq.~\ref{eq:gofr}
1192 <        \item $g_{\text{AB}}(r, \cos \theta)$: Eq.~\ref{eq:gofrCosTheta}
1193 <        \item $g_{\text{AB}}(r, \cos \omega)$: Eq.~\ref{eq:gofrCosOmega}
1194 <        \item $g_{\text{AB}}(x, y, z)$: Eq.~\ref{eq:gofrXYZ}
1195 <        \item $\langle \cos \omega \rangle_{\text{AB}}(r)$:
1196 <                Eq.~\ref{eq:cosOmegaOfR}
1197 < \end{itemize}
1269 > program \texttt{staticProps}. The code is capable of calculating a
1270 > number of pair correlations between species A and B. Some of which
1271 > only apply to directional entities. The summary of pair correlations
1272 > can be found in Table~\ref{oopseTb:gofrs}
1273  
1274 + \begin{table}
1275 + \caption[The list of pair correlations in \texttt{staticProps}]{The different pair correlations in \texttt{staticProps} along with whether atom A or B must be directional.}
1276 + \label{oopseTb:gofrs}
1277 + \begin{center}
1278 + \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
1279 + \hline
1280 + Name      & Equation & Directional Atom \\ \hline
1281 + $g_{\text{AB}}(r)$              & Eq.~\ref{eq:gofr}         & neither \\ \hline
1282 + $g_{\text{AB}}(r, \cos \theta)$ & Eq.~\ref{eq:gofrCosTheta} & A \\ \hline
1283 + $g_{\text{AB}}(r, \cos \omega)$ & Eq.~\ref{eq:gofrCosOmega} & both \\ \hline
1284 + $g_{\text{AB}}(x, y, z)$        & Eq.~\ref{eq:gofrXYZ}      & neither \\ \hline
1285 + $\langle \cos \omega \rangle_{\text{AB}}(r)$ & Eq.~\ref{eq:cosOmegaOfR} &%
1286 +        both \\ \hline
1287 + \end{tabular}
1288 + \end{center}
1289 + \end{table}
1290 +
1291   The first pair correlation, $g_{\text{AB}}(r)$, is defined as follows:
1292   \begin{equation}
1293   g_{\text{AB}}(r) = \frac{V}{N_{\text{A}}N_{\text{B}}}\langle %%
# Line 1273 | Line 1365 | All static properties are calculated on a frame by fra
1365   correlation that gives the average correlation of two directional
1366   entities as a function of their distance from each other.
1367  
1276 All static properties are calculated on a frame by frame basis. The
1277 trajectory is read a single frame at a time, and the appropriate
1278 calculations are done on each frame. Once one frame is finished, the
1279 next frame is read in, and a running average of the property being
1280 calculated is accumulated in each frame. The program allows for the
1281 user to specify more than one property be calculated in single run,
1282 preventing the need to read a file multiple times.
1283
1368   \subsection{\label{dynamicProps}Dynamic Property Analysis}
1369  
1370   The dynamic properties of a trajectory are calculated with the program
1371 < \texttt{dynamicProps}. The program will calculate the following properties:
1371 > \texttt{dynamicProps}. The program calculates the following properties:
1372   \begin{gather}
1373   \langle | \mathbf{r}(t) - \mathbf{r}(0) |^2 \rangle \label{eq:rms}\\
1374   \langle \mathbf{v}(t) \cdot \mathbf{v}(0) \rangle \label{eq:velCorr} \\
1375   \langle \mathbf{j}(t) \cdot \mathbf{j}(0) \rangle \label{eq:angularVelCorr}
1376   \end{gather}
1377  
1378 < Eq.~\ref{eq:rms} is the root mean square displacement
1379 < function. Eq.~\ref{eq:velCorr} and Eq.~\ref{eq:angularVelCorr} are the
1380 < velocity and angular velocity correlation functions respectively. The
1381 < latter is only applicable to directional species in the simulation.
1378 > Eq.~\ref{eq:rms} is the root mean square displacement function. Which
1379 > allows one to observe the average displacement of an atom as a
1380 > function of time. The quantity is useful when calculating diffusion
1381 > coefficients because of the Einstein Relation, which is valid at long
1382 > times.\cite{allen87:csl}
1383 > \begin{equation}
1384 > 2tD = \langle | \mathbf{r}(t) - \mathbf{r}(0) |^2 \rangle
1385 > \label{oopseEq:einstein}
1386 > \end{equation}
1387  
1388 < The \texttt{dynamicProps} program handles he file in a manner different from
1389 < \texttt{staticProps}. As the properties calculated by this program are time
1390 < dependent, multiple frames must be read in simultaneously by the
1391 < program. For small trajectories this is no problem, and the entire
1392 < trajectory is read into memory. However, for long trajectories of
1304 < large systems, the files can be quite large. In order to accommodate
1305 < large files, \texttt{dynamicProps} adopts a scheme whereby two blocks of memory
1306 < are allocated to read in several frames each.
1307 <
1308 < In this two block scheme, the correlation functions are first
1309 < calculated within each memory block, then the cross correlations
1310 < between the frames contained within the two blocks are
1311 < calculated. Once completed, the memory blocks are incremented, and the
1312 < process is repeated. A diagram illustrating the process is shown in
1313 < Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:dynamicPropsMemory}. As was the case with
1314 < \texttt{staticProps}, multiple properties may be calculated in a
1315 < single run to avoid multiple reads on the same file.
1316 <
1317 <
1388 > Eq.~\ref{eq:velCorr} and \ref{eq:angularVelCorr} are the translational
1389 > velocity and angular velocity correlation functions respectively. The
1390 > latter is only applicable to directional species in the
1391 > simulation. The velocity autocorrelation functions are useful when
1392 > determining vibrational information about the system of interest.
1393  
1394   \section{\label{oopseSec:design}Program Design}
1395  
# Line 1354 | Line 1429 | programs will take the \texttt{.bass} file, and create
1429   developed to utilize the routines provided by \texttt{libBASS} and
1430   \texttt{libmdtools}. The main program of the package is \texttt{oopse}
1431   and the corresponding parallel version \texttt{oopse\_MPI}. These two
1432 < programs will take the \texttt{.bass} file, and create then integrate
1432 > programs will take the \texttt{.bass} file, and create (and integrate)
1433   the simulation specified in the script. The two analysis programs
1434   \texttt{staticProps} and \texttt{dynamicProps} utilize the core
1435   libraries to initialize and read in trajectories from previously
# Line 1366 | Line 1441 | Although processor power is continually growing month
1441  
1442   \subsection{\label{oopseSec:parallelization} Parallelization of {\sc oopse}}
1443  
1444 < Although processor power is continually growing month by month, it is
1445 < still unreasonable to simulate systems of more then a 1000 atoms on a
1446 < single processor. To facilitate study of larger system sizes or
1447 < smaller systems on long time scales in a reasonable period of time,
1448 < parallel methods were developed allowing multiple CPU's to share the
1449 < simulation workload. Three general categories of parallel
1450 < decomposition method's have been developed including atomic, spatial
1451 < and force decomposition methods.
1444 > Although processor power is continually growing roughly following
1445 > Moore's Law, it is still unreasonable to simulate systems of more then
1446 > a 1000 atoms on a single processor. To facilitate study of larger
1447 > system sizes or smaller systems on long time scales in a reasonable
1448 > period of time, parallel methods were developed allowing multiple
1449 > CPU's to share the simulation workload. Three general categories of
1450 > parallel decomposition methods have been developed including atomic,
1451 > spatial and force decomposition methods.
1452  
1453 < Algorithmically simplest of the three method's is atomic decomposition
1453 > Algorithmically simplest of the three methods is atomic decomposition
1454   where N particles in a simulation are split among P processors for the
1455   duration of the simulation. Computational cost scales as an optimal
1456   $O(N/P)$ for atomic decomposition. Unfortunately all processors must
1457 < communicate positions and forces with all other processors leading
1458 < communication to scale as an unfavorable $O(N)$ independent of the
1459 < number of processors. This communication bottleneck led to the
1460 < development of spatial and force decomposition methods in which
1461 < communication among processors scales much more favorably. Spatial or
1462 < domain decomposition divides the physical spatial domain into 3D boxes
1463 < in which each processor is responsible for calculation of forces and
1464 < positions of particles located in its box. Particles are reassigned to
1465 < different processors as they move through simulation space. To
1466 < calculate forces on a given particle, a processor must know the
1467 < positions of particles within some cutoff radius located on nearby
1468 < processors instead of the positions of particles on all
1469 < processors. Both communication between processors and computation
1470 < scale as $O(N/P)$ in the spatial method. However, spatial
1457 > communicate positions and forces with all other processors at every
1458 > force evaluation, leading communication costs to scale as an
1459 > unfavorable $O(N)$, \emph{independent of the number of processors}. This
1460 > communication bottleneck led to the development of spatial and force
1461 > decomposition methods in which communication among processors scales
1462 > much more favorably. Spatial or domain decomposition divides the
1463 > physical spatial domain into 3D boxes in which each processor is
1464 > responsible for calculation of forces and positions of particles
1465 > located in its box. Particles are reassigned to different processors
1466 > as they move through simulation space. To calculate forces on a given
1467 > particle, a processor must know the positions of particles within some
1468 > cutoff radius located on nearby processors instead of the positions of
1469 > particles on all processors. Both communication between processors and
1470 > computation scale as $O(N/P)$ in the spatial method. However, spatial
1471   decomposition adds algorithmic complexity to the simulation code and
1472   is not very efficient for small N since the overall communication
1473   scales as the surface to volume ratio $(N/P)^{2/3}$ in three
1474   dimensions.
1475  
1476 < Force decomposition assigns particles to processors based on a block
1477 < decomposition of the force matrix. Processors are split into a
1478 < optimally square grid forming row and column processor groups. Forces
1479 < are calculated on particles in a given row by particles located in
1480 < that processors column assignment. Force decomposition is less complex
1481 < to implement then the spatial method but still scales computationally
1482 < as $O(N/P)$ and scales as $(N/\sqrt{p})$ in communication
1483 < cost. Plimpton also found that force decompositions scales more
1484 < favorably then spatial decomposition up to 10,000 atoms and favorably
1485 < competes with spatial methods for up to 100,000 atoms.
1476 > The parallelization method used in {\sc oopse} is the force
1477 > decomposition method.  Force decomposition assigns particles to
1478 > processors based on a block decomposition of the force
1479 > matrix. Processors are split into an optimally square grid forming row
1480 > and column processor groups. Forces are calculated on particles in a
1481 > given row by particles located in that processors column
1482 > assignment. Force decomposition is less complex to implement than the
1483 > spatial method but still scales computationally as $O(N/P)$ and scales
1484 > as $O(N/\sqrt{P})$ in communication cost. Plimpton has also found that
1485 > force decompositions scale more favorably than spatial decompositions
1486 > for systems up to 10,000 atoms and favorably compete with spatial
1487 > methods up to 100,000 atoms.\cite{plimpton95}
1488  
1489   \subsection{\label{oopseSec:memAlloc}Memory Issues in Trajectory Analysis}
1490  
1491   For large simulations, the trajectory files can sometimes reach sizes
1492   in excess of several gigabytes. In order to effectively analyze that
1493 < amount of data+, two memory management schemes have been devised for
1493 > amount of data, two memory management schemes have been devised for
1494   \texttt{staticProps} and for \texttt{dynamicProps}. The first scheme,
1495   developed for \texttt{staticProps}, is the simplest. As each frame's
1496   statistics are calculated independent of each other, memory is
# Line 1421 | Line 1498 | each frame and a single read through of the file.
1498   complete for the snapshot. To prevent multiple passes through a
1499   potentially large file, \texttt{staticProps} is capable of calculating
1500   all requested correlations per frame with only a single pair loop in
1501 < each frame and a single read through of the file.
1501 > each frame and a single read of the file.
1502  
1503   The second, more advanced memory scheme, is used by
1504   \texttt{dynamicProps}. Here, the program must have multiple frames in
# Line 1431 | Line 1508 | pairs within the block. After in block correlations ar
1508   in blocks. The number of frames in each block is specified by the
1509   user, and upon reading a block of the trajectory,
1510   \texttt{dynamicProps} will calculate all of the time correlation frame
1511 < pairs within the block. After in block correlations are complete, a
1511 > pairs within the block. After in-block correlations are complete, a
1512   second block of the trajectory is read, and the cross correlations are
1513   calculated between the two blocks. this second block is then freed and
1514   then incremented and the process repeated until the end of the
# Line 1449 | Line 1526 | Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:dynamicPropsMemory}.
1526   \label{oopseFig:dynamicPropsMemory}
1527   \end{figure}
1528  
1452 \subsection{\label{openSource}Open Source and Distribution License}
1453
1529   \section{\label{oopseSec:conclusion}Conclusion}
1530  
1531   We have presented the design and implementation of our open source
1532 < simulation package {\sc oopse}. The package offers novel
1533 < capabilities to the field of Molecular Dynamics simulation packages in
1534 < the form of dipolar force fields, and symplectic integration of rigid
1535 < body dynamics. It is capable of scaling across multiple processors
1536 < through the use of MPI. It also implements several integration
1537 < ensembles allowing the end user control over temperature and
1538 < pressure. In addition, it is capable of integrating constrained
1539 < dynamics through both the {\sc rattle} algorithm and the z-constraint
1540 < method.
1532 > simulation package {\sc oopse}. The package offers novel capabilities
1533 > to the field of Molecular Dynamics simulation packages in the form of
1534 > dipolar force fields, and symplectic integration of rigid body
1535 > dynamics. It is capable of scaling across multiple processors through
1536 > the use of force based decomposition using MPI. It also implements
1537 > several advanced integrators allowing the end user control over
1538 > temperature and pressure. In addition, it is capable of integrating
1539 > constrained dynamics through both the {\sc rattle} algorithm and the
1540 > z-constraint method.
1541  
1542   These features are all brought together in a single open-source
1543 < development package. This allows researchers to not only benefit from
1543 > program. Allowing researchers to not only benefit from
1544   {\sc oopse}, but also contribute to {\sc oopse}'s development as
1545   well.Documentation and source code for {\sc oopse} can be downloaded
1546   from \texttt{http://www.openscience.org/oopse/}.

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines