ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/multipole/multipole_2/multipole2.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/multipole/multipole_2/multipole2.tex (file contents):
Revision 4181 by gezelter, Thu Jun 12 14:58:06 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4184 by gezelter, Sat Jun 14 23:35:39 2014 UTC

# Line 70 | Line 70 | of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556}
70    We have tested the real-space shifted potential (SP),
71    gradient-shifted force (GSF), and Taylor-shifted force (TSF) methods
72    for multipoles that were developed in the first paper in this series
73 <  against a reference method. The tests were carried out in a variety
74 <  of condensed-phase environments which were designed to test all
75 <  levels of the multipole-multipole interactions.  Comparisons of the
76 <  energy differences between configurations, molecular forces, and
77 <  torques were used to analyze how well the real-space models perform
78 <  relative to the more computationally expensive Ewald sum.  We have
79 <  also investigated the energy conservation properties of the new
80 <  methods in molecular dynamics simulations using all of these
81 <  methods. The SP method shows excellent agreement with
82 <  configurational energy differences, forces, and torques, and would
83 <  be suitable for use in Monte Carlo calculations.  Of the two new
84 <  shifted-force methods, the GSF approach shows the best agreement
85 <  with Ewald-derived energies, forces, and torques and exhibits energy
86 <  conservation properties that make it an excellent choice for
87 <  efficiently computing electrostatic interactions in molecular
88 <  dynamics simulations.
73 >  against the multipolar Ewald sum as a reference method. The tests
74 >  were carried out in a variety of condensed-phase environments which
75 >  were designed to test all levels of the multipole-multipole
76 >  interactions.  Comparisons of the energy differences between
77 >  configurations, molecular forces, and torques were used to analyze
78 >  how well the real-space models perform relative to the more
79 >  computationally expensive Ewald treatment.  We have also investigated the
80 >  energy conservation properties of the new methods in molecular
81 >  dynamics simulations using all of these methods. The SP method shows
82 >  excellent agreement with configurational energy differences, forces,
83 >  and torques, and would be suitable for use in Monte Carlo
84 >  calculations.  Of the two new shifted-force methods, the GSF
85 >  approach shows the best agreement with Ewald-derived energies,
86 >  forces, and torques and exhibits energy conservation properties that
87 >  make it an excellent choice for efficiently computing electrostatic
88 >  interactions in molecular dynamics simulations.
89   \end{abstract}
90  
91   %\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
92                               % Classification Scheme.
93 < \keywords{Electrostatics, Multipoles, Real-space}
93 > %\keywords{Electrostatics, Multipoles, Real-space}
94  
95   \maketitle
96  
# Line 122 | Line 122 | periodicity in the Ewald’s method can also be proble
122   interfaces.\cite{Parry:1975if,Parry:1976fq,Clarke77,Perram79,Rhee:1989kl}
123   To simulate interfacial systems, Parry's extension of the 3D Ewald sum
124   is appropriate for slab geometries.\cite{Parry:1975if} The inherent
125 < periodicity in the Ewald’s method can also be problematic for
126 < interfacial molecular systems.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} Modified Ewald
127 < methods that were developed to handle two-dimensional (2D)
128 < electrostatic interactions in interfacial systems have not had similar
129 < particle-mesh treatments.\cite{Parry:1975if, Parry:1976fq, Clarke77,
130 <  Perram79,Rhee:1989kl,Spohr:1997sf,Yeh:1999oq}
125 > periodicity in the Ewald method can also be problematic for molecular
126 > interfaces.\cite{Fennell:2006lq} Modified Ewald methods that were
127 > developed to handle two-dimensional (2D) electrostatic interactions in
128 > interfacial systems have not seen similar particle-mesh
129 > treatments,\cite{Parry:1975if, Parry:1976fq, Clarke77,
130 >  Perram79,Rhee:1989kl,Spohr:1997sf,Yeh:1999oq} and still scale poorly
131 > with system size.
132  
133   \subsection{Real-space methods}
134   Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf:1999dn} proposed a real space $O(N)$
135   method for calculating electrostatic interactions between point
136   charges. They argued that the effective Coulomb interaction in
137 < condensed systems is actually short ranged.\cite{Wolf92,Wolf95} For an
138 < ordered lattice (e.g., when computing the Madelung constant of an
139 < ionic solid), the material can be considered as a set of ions
137 > condensed phase systems is actually short ranged.\cite{Wolf92,Wolf95}
138 > For an ordered lattice (e.g., when computing the Madelung constant of
139 > an ionic solid), the material can be considered as a set of ions
140   interacting with neutral dipolar or quadrupolar ``molecules'' giving
141   an effective distance dependence for the electrostatic interactions of
142   $r^{-5}$ (see figure \ref{fig:schematic}).  For this reason, careful
143 < applications of Wolf's method are able to obtain accurate estimates of
144 < Madelung constants using relatively short cutoff radii.  Recently,
145 < Fukuda used neutralization of the higher order moments for the
146 < calculation of the electrostatic interaction of the point charges
147 < system.\cite{Fukuda:2013sf}
143 > application of Wolf's method can obtain accurate estimates of Madelung
144 > constants using relatively short cutoff radii.  Recently, Fukuda used
145 > neutralization of the higher order moments for calculation of the
146 > electrostatic interactions in point charge
147 > systems.\cite{Fukuda:2013sf}
148  
149   \begin{figure}
150    \centering
151    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{schematic.pdf}
152    \caption{Top: Ionic systems exhibit local clustering of dissimilar
153      charges (in the smaller grey circle), so interactions are
154 <    effectively charge-multipole in order at longer distances.  With
155 <    hard cutoffs, motion of individual charges in and out of the
156 <    cutoff sphere can break the effective multipolar ordering.
157 <    Bottom: dipolar crystals and fluids have a similar effective
154 >    effectively charge-multipole at longer distances.  With hard
155 >    cutoffs, motion of individual charges in and out of the cutoff
156 >    sphere can break the effective multipolar ordering.  Bottom:
157 >    dipolar crystals and fluids have a similar effective
158      \textit{quadrupolar} ordering (in the smaller grey circles), and
159      orientational averaging helps to reduce the effective range of the
160      interactions in the fluid.  Placement of reversed image multipoles
# Line 163 | Line 164 | truncation defects. Wolf \textit{et al.} further argue
164   \end{figure}
165  
166   The direct truncation of interactions at a cutoff radius creates
167 < truncation defects. Wolf \textit{et al.} further argued that
167 > truncation defects. Wolf \textit{et al.}  argued that
168   truncation errors are due to net charge remaining inside the cutoff
169   sphere.\cite{Wolf:1999dn} To neutralize this charge they proposed
170   placing an image charge on the surface of the cutoff sphere for every
# Line 339 | Line 340 | $\bf a$.
340   where the multipole operator for site $\bf a$, $\hat{M}_{\bf a}$, is
341   expressed in terms of the point charge, $C_{\bf a}$, dipole, ${\bf D}_{\bf
342      a}$, and quadrupole, $\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a}$, for object
343 < $\bf a$.
343 > $\bf a$, etc.
344  
345   % Interactions between multipoles can be expressed as higher derivatives
346   % of the bare Coulomb potential, so one way of ensuring that the forces
# Line 412 | Line 413 | to another site within cutoff sphere are derived from
413   connection to unmodified electrostatics as well as the smooth
414   transition to zero in both these functions as $r\rightarrow r_c$.  The
415   electrostatic forces and torques acting on the central multipole due
416 < to another site within cutoff sphere are derived from
416 > to another site within the cutoff sphere are derived from
417   Eq.~\ref{generic}, accounting for the appropriate number of
418   derivatives. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions are
419   presented in the first paper in this series (Reference
# Line 430 | Line 431 | U_{D_{\bf a} D_{\bf b}}(r_c)
431   U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)  = U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r) -
432   U_{D_{\bf a} D_{\bf b}}(r_c)
433     - (r_{ab}-r_c) ~~~\hat{r}_{ab} \cdot
434 <  \vec{\nabla} U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r) \Big \lvert _{r_c}
434 >  \nabla U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r_c).
435   \end{equation}
436   Here the lab-frame orientations of the two dipoles, $\mathbf{D}_{\bf
437    a}$ and $\mathbf{D}_{\bf b}$, are retained at the cutoff distance
# Line 454 | Line 455 | U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathb
455   In general, the gradient shifted potential between a central multipole
456   and any multipolar site inside the cutoff radius is given by,
457   \begin{equation}
458 < U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
459 < U(\mathbf{r}_c,\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - (r-r_c) \hat{r}
460 < \cdot \nabla U(\mathbf{r},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \Big \lvert  _{r_c} \right]
458 >  U^{\text{GSF}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
459 >    U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - (r-r_c) \hat{\mathbf{r}}
460 >    \cdot \nabla U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \right]
461   \label{generic2}
462   \end{equation}
463   where the sum describes a separate force-shifting that is applied to
464 < each orientational contribution to the energy.
464 > each orientational contribution to the energy.  In this expression,
465 > $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ is the unit vector connecting the two multipoles
466 > ($a$ and $b$) in space, and $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$
467 > represent the orientations the multipoles.
468  
469   The third term converges more rapidly than the first two terms as a
470   function of radius, hence the contribution of the third term is very
471   small for large cutoff radii.  The force and torque derived from
472 < equation \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
472 > Eq. \ref{generic2} are consistent with the energy expression and
473   approach zero as $r \rightarrow r_c$.  Both the GSF and TSF methods
474   can be considered generalizations of the original DSF method for
475   higher order multipole interactions. GSF and TSF are also identical up
# Line 473 | Line 477 | GSF potential are presented in the first paper in this
477   the energy, force and torque for higher order multipole-multipole
478   interactions. Complete energy, force, and torque expressions for the
479   GSF potential are presented in the first paper in this series
480 < (Reference~\onlinecite{PaperI})
480 > (Reference~\onlinecite{PaperI}).
481  
482  
483   \subsection{Shifted potential (SP) }
# Line 487 | Line 491 | U(\mathbf{r}_c,\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \ri
491   effectively shifts the total potential to zero at the cutoff radius,
492   \begin{equation}
493   U^{\text{SP}} = \sum \left[ U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) -
494 < U(\mathbf{r}_c,\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \right]
494 > U(r_c \hat{\mathbf{r}},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \right]
495   \label{eq:SP}
496   \end{equation}          
497   where the sum describes separate potential shifting that is done for

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines