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 4208 by gezelter, Fri Aug 8 15:11:49 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4211 by gezelter, Mon Aug 18 14:44:36 2014 UTC

# Line 389 | Line 389 | $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} + \fra
389   approach than they are in the Taylor-shifted method.
390  
391   For the gradient shifted (GSF) method with the undamped kernel,
392 < $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} + \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} + \frac{4}{r_c^3}$ and
392 > $v_{21}(r) = -\frac{1}{r^3} - \frac{3 r}{r_c^4} + \frac{4}{r_c^3}$ and
393   $v_{22}(r) = \frac{3}{r^3} + \frac{9 r}{r_c^4} - \frac{12}{r_c^3}$.
394   Again, these functions go smoothly to zero as $r\rightarrow r_c$, and
395   because the Taylor expansion retains only one term, they are
# Line 896 | Line 896 | cutoff values are utilized.
896   \begin{figure}
897    \centering
898    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{newDrift_12.eps}
899 < \caption{Analysis of the energy conservation of the real-space methods
900 <  for the SSDQ water/ion system. $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear
901 <  drift in energy over time (in kcal/mol/particle/ns) and $\delta
902 <  \mathrm{E}_0$ is the standard deviation of energy fluctuations
903 <  around this drift (in kcal/mol/particle).  Points that appear in the
904 <  green region at the bottom exhibit better energy conservation than
905 <  would be obtained using common parameters for Ewald-based
906 <  electrostatics.\label{fig:energyDrift}}
899 >  \caption{Energy conservation of the real-space methods for the SSDQ
900 >    water/ion system. $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear drift in
901 >    energy over time (in kcal/mol/particle/ns) and $\delta
902 >    \mathrm{E}_0$ is the standard deviation of energy fluctuations
903 >    around this drift (in kcal/mol/particle).  Points that appear in
904 >    the green region at the bottom exhibit better energy conservation
905 >    than would be obtained using common parameters for Ewald-based
906 >    electrostatics.\label{fig:energyDrift}}
907   \end{figure}
908  
909   \subsection{Reproduction of Structural \& Dynamical Features\label{sec:structure}}
# Line 931 | Line 931 | There is a very slight overstructuring of the first so
931    treatment.\label{fig:gofr}}
932   \end{figure}
933  
934 < There is a very slight overstructuring of the first solvation shell
935 < when using when using TSF at lower values of the damping coefficient
936 < ($\alpha \le 0.1$) or when using undamped GSF.  With moderate damping,
937 < GSF and SP produce pair distributions that are identical (within
938 < numerical noise) to their Ewald counterparts.
934 > There is a minor overstructuring of the first solvation shell when
935 > using TSF or when overdamping with any of the real-space methods.
936 > With moderate damping, GSF and SP produce pair distributions that are
937 > identical (within numerical noise) to their Ewald counterparts.  The
938 > degree of overstructuring can be measured most easily using the
939 > coordination number,
940 > \begin{equation}
941 > n_C = 4\pi\rho \int_{0}^{a}r^2\text{g}(r)dr,
942 > \end{equation}
943 > where $\rho$ is the number density of the site-site pair interactions,
944 > and $a$ is the radial location of the minima following the first peak
945 > in $g(r)$ ($a = 4.2$ \AA\  for the SSDQ water/ion system).  The
946 > coordination number is shown as a function of the damping coefficient
947 > for all of the real space methods in Fig. \ref{fig:Props}.
948  
949 < A structural property that is a more demanding test of modified
950 < electrostatics is the mean value of the electrostatic energy $\langle
951 < U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$ which is obtained by sampling the
952 < liquid-state configurations experienced by a liquid evolving entirely
953 < under the influence of each of the methods.  In table \ref{tab:Props}
954 < we demonstrate how $\langle U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$ varies with
955 < the damping parameter, $\alpha$, for each of the methods.
949 > A more demanding test of modified electrostatics is the average value
950 > of the electrostatic energy $\langle U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$
951 > which is obtained by sampling the liquid-state configurations
952 > experienced by a liquid evolving entirely under the influence of each
953 > of the methods.  In fig \ref{fig:Props} we demonstrate how $\langle
954 > U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$ varies with the damping parameter,
955 > $\alpha$, for each of the methods.
956  
957   As in the crystals studied in the first paper, damping is important
958   for converging the mean electrostatic energy values, particularly for
959   the two shifted force methods (GSF and TSF).  A value of $\alpha
960   \approx 0.2$ \AA$^{-1}$ is sufficient to converge the SP and GSF
961   energies with a cutoff of 12 \AA, while shorter cutoffs require more
962 < dramatic damping ($\alpha \approx 0.3$ \AA$^{-1}$ for $r_c = 9$ \AA).
962 > dramatic damping ($\alpha \approx 0.28$ \AA$^{-1}$ for $r_c = 9$ \AA).
963   Overdamping the real-space electrostatic methods occurs with $\alpha >
964 < 0.4$, causing the estimate of the energy to drop below the Ewald
965 < results.
964 > 0.3$, causing the estimate of the electrostatic energy to drop below
965 > the Ewald results.
966  
967 < These ``optimal'' values of the damping coefficient are slightly
968 < larger than what were observed for DSF electrostatics for purely
969 < point-charge systems, although a value of $\alpha=0.18$ \AA$^{-1}$ for
970 < $r_c = 12$\AA\ appears to be an excellent compromise for mixed
971 < charge/multipolar systems.
967 > These ``optimal'' values of the damping coefficient for structural
968 > features are similar to those observed for DSF electrostatics for
969 > purely point-charge systems, and the range $\alpha= 0.175 \rightarrow
970 > 0.225$ \AA$^{-1}$ for $r_c = 12$\AA\ appears to be an excellent
971 > compromise for mixed charge/multipolar systems.
972  
973   To test the fidelity of the electrostatic methods at reproducing
974 < dynamics in a multipolar liquid, it is also useful to look at
974 > \textit{dynamics} in a multipolar liquid, it is also useful to look at
975   transport properties, particularly the diffusion constant,
976   \begin{equation}
977   D = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{6 t} \langle \left|
# Line 970 | Line 979 | the multipoles.  For the soft dipolar fluid and the SS
979   \label{eq:diff}
980   \end{equation}
981   which measures long-time behavior and is sensitive to the forces on
982 < the multipoles.  For the soft dipolar fluid and the SSDQ liquid
983 < systems, the self-diffusion constants (D) were calculated from linear
984 < fits to the long-time portion of the mean square displacement,
985 < $\langle r^{2}(t) \rangle$.\cite{Allen87}
982 > the multipoles. The self-diffusion constants (D) were calculated from
983 > linear fits to the long-time portion of the mean square displacement,
984 > $\langle r^{2}(t) \rangle$.\cite{Allen87} In fig. \ref{fig:Props} we
985 > demonstrate how the diffusion constant depends on the choice of
986 > real-space methods and the damping coefficient.  Both the SP and GSF
987 > methods can obtain excellent agreement with Ewald again using moderate
988 > damping.
989  
990   In addition to translational diffusion, orientational relaxation times
991   were calculated for comparisons with the Ewald simulations and with
992 < experiments. These values were determined from the same 1~ns
993 < microcanonical trajectories used for translational diffusion by
982 < calculating the orientational time correlation function,
992 > experiments. These values were determined by calculating the
993 > orientational time correlation function,
994   \begin{equation}
995   C_l^\gamma(t) = \left\langle P_l\left[\hat{\mathbf{A}}_\gamma(t)
996                  \cdot\hat{\mathbf{A}}_\gamma(0)\right]\right\rangle,
997   \label{eq:OrientCorr}
998   \end{equation}
999 < where $P_l$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $l$ and
1000 < $\hat{\mathbf{A}}_\gamma$ is the unit vector for body axis $\gamma$.
1001 < The reference frame used for our sample dipolar systems has the
1002 < $z$-axis running along the dipoles, and for the SSDQ water model, the
1003 < $y$-axis connects the two implied hydrogen atom positions.  From the
1004 < orientation autocorrelation functions, we can obtain time constants
1005 < for rotational relaxation either by fitting an exponential function or
1006 < by integrating the entire correlation function.  In a good water
1007 < model, these decay times would be comparable to water orientational
1008 < relaxation times from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). The relaxation
998 < constant obtained from $C_2^y(t)$ is normally of experimental interest
999 < because it describes the relaxation of the principle axis connecting
1000 < the hydrogen atoms. Thus, $C_2^y(t)$ can be compared to the
1001 < intermolecular portion of the dipole-dipole relaxation from a proton
1002 < NMR signal and should provide an estimate of the NMR relaxation time
1003 < constant.\cite{Impey82}
1004 <
1005 < Results for the diffusion constants and orientational relaxation times
1006 < are shown in figure \ref{tab:Props}. From this data, it is apparent
1007 < that the values for both $D$ and $\tau_2$ using the Ewald sum are
1008 < reproduced with reasonable fidelity by the GSF method.
999 > from the same 350 ps microcanonical trajectories that were used for
1000 > translational diffusion.  Here, $P_l$ is the Legendre polynomial of
1001 > order $l$ and $\hat{\mathbf{A}}_\gamma$ is the unit vector for body
1002 > axis $\gamma$.  The reference frame used for our sample dipolar
1003 > systems has the $z$-axis running along the dipoles, and for the SSDQ
1004 > water model, the $y$-axis connects the two implied hydrogen atom
1005 > positions.  From the orientation autocorrelation functions, we can
1006 > obtain time constants for rotational relaxation either by fitting to a
1007 > multi-exponential model for the orientational relaxation, or by
1008 > integrating the correlation functions.
1009  
1010 < The $\tau_2$ results in \ref{tab:Props} show a much greater difference
1011 < between the real-space and the Ewald results.
1010 > In a good water model, the orientational decay times would be
1011 > comparable to water orientational relaxation times from nuclear
1012 > magnetic resonance (NMR). The relaxation constant obtained from
1013 > $C_2^y(t)$ is normally of experimental interest because it describes
1014 > the relaxation of the principle axis connecting the hydrogen
1015 > atoms. Thus, $C_2^y(t)$ can be compared to the intermolecular portion
1016 > of the dipole-dipole relaxation from a proton NMR signal and can
1017 > provide an estimate of the NMR relaxation time constant.\cite{Impey82}
1018 > In fig. \ref{fig:Props} we compare the $\tau_2^y$ and $\tau_2^z$
1019 > values for the various real-space methods over a range of different
1020 > damping coefficients.  The rotational relaxation for the $z$ axis
1021 > primarily probes the torques on the dipoles, while the relaxation for
1022 > the $y$ axis is sensitive primarily to the quadrupolar torques.
1023  
1024 < \begin{table}
1025 < \caption{Comparison of the structural and dynamic properties for the
1026 <  soft dipolar liquid test for all of the real-space methods.\label{tab:Props}}
1027 < \begin{tabular}{l|c|cccc|cccc|cccc}
1028 <         & Ewald & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{SP} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{GSF} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{TSF} \\
1029 < $\alpha$ (\AA$^{-1}$) & &      
1030 < 0.0 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 &
1031 < 0.0 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 &
1032 < 0.0 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 \\ \cline{2-6}\cline{6-10}\cline{10-14}
1024 > \begin{figure}
1025 >  \caption{Comparison of the structural and dynamic properties for the
1026 >    combined multipolar liquid (SSDQ water + ions) for all of the
1027 >    real-space methods with $r_c = 12$\AA. Electrostatic energies,
1028 >    $\langle U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle / N$ (in kcal / mol),
1029 >    coordination numbers, $n_C$, diffusion constants (in $10^{-5}
1030 >    \mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^{-1}$), and rotational correlation times
1031 >    (in ps) all show excellent agreement with Ewald results for
1032 >    damping coefficients in the range $\alpha= 0.175 \rightarrow
1033 >    0.225$ \AA$^{-1}$. \label{fig:Props}}
1034 >  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{properties.eps}
1035 > \end{figure}
1036  
1037 < $\langle U_\mathrm{elect} \rangle /N$ &&&&&&&&&&&&&\\
1038 < D ($10^{-4}~\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{s}$)&
1039 < 470.2(6) &
1040 < 416.6(5) &
1041 < 379.6(5) &
1042 < 438.6(5) &
1043 < 476.0(6) &
1044 < 412.8(5) &
1045 < 421.1(5) &
1046 < 400.5(5) &
1047 < 437.5(6) &
1048 < 434.6(5) &
1049 < 411.4(5) &
1050 < 545.3(7) &
1051 < 459.6(6) \\
1038 < $\tau_2$ (fs) &
1039 < 1.136 &
1040 < 1.041 &
1041 < 1.064 &
1042 < 1.109 &
1043 < 1.211 &
1044 < 1.119 &
1045 < 1.039 &
1046 < 1.058 &
1047 < 1.21  &
1048 < 1.15  &
1049 < 1.172 &
1050 < 1.153 &
1051 < 1.125 \\
1052 < \end{tabular}
1053 < \end{table}
1037 > In Fig. \ref{fig:Props} it appears that values for $D$, $\tau_2^y$,
1038 > and $\tau_2^z$ using the Ewald sum are reproduced with excellent
1039 > fidelity by the GSF and SP methods.  All of the real space methods can
1040 > be \textit{overdamped}, which reduces the effective range of multipole
1041 > interactions, causing structural and dynamical changes from the
1042 > correct behavior.  Because overdamping weakens orientational
1043 > preferences between adjacent molecules, it manifests as too-rapid
1044 > orientational decay coupled with faster diffusion and
1045 > over-coordination of the liquid.  Underdamping is less problematic for
1046 > the SP and GSF methods, as their structural and dynamical properties
1047 > still reproduce the Ewald results even in the completely undamped
1048 > ($\alpha = 0$) case.  An optimal range for the electrostatic damping
1049 > parameter appears to be $\alpha= 0.175 \rightarrow 0.225$ \AA$^{-1}$
1050 > for $r_c = 12$\AA, which similar to the optimal range found for the
1051 > damped shifted force potential for point charges.\cite{Fennell:2006lq}
1052  
1055
1053   \section{CONCLUSION}
1054   In the first paper in this series, we generalized the
1055   charge-neutralized electrostatic energy originally developed by Wolf
# Line 1076 | Line 1073 | The GSF method produced quantitative agreement with Ew
1073   sphere to derive shifted force and torque expressions, and is a
1074   significantly more gentle approach.
1075  
1076 < The GSF method produced quantitative agreement with Ewald energy,
1077 < force, and torques.  It also performs well in conserving energy in MD
1076 > The GSF method produces quantitative agreement with Ewald energies,
1077 > forcse, and torques.  It also performs well in conserving energy in MD
1078   simulations.  The Taylor-shifted (TSF) model provides smooth dynamics,
1079   but these take place on a potential energy surface that is
1080   significantly perturbed from Ewald-based electrostatics.  Because it
# Line 1089 | Line 1086 | formula for dielectric constants.\cite{Izvekov:2008wo}
1086   method also has the unique property that a large number of derivatives
1087   can be made to vanish at the cutoff radius.  This property has proven
1088   useful in past treatments of the corrections to the fluctuation
1089 < formula for dielectric constants.\cite{Izvekov:2008wo}
1089 > formula for dielectric constants.\cite{Izvekov:2008wo}
1090  
1091   Reproduction of both structural and dynamical features in the liquid
1092   systems is remarkably good for both the SP and GSF models.  Pair
# Line 1120 | Line 1117 | better than a multipolar Ewald sum for finite-sized re
1117   important.  Both the SP and GSF methods retain excellent fidelity to
1118   the Ewald energies, forces and torques.  Additionally, the energy
1119   drift and fluctuations from the GSF electrostatics are significantly
1120 < better than a multipolar Ewald sum for finite-sized reciprocal spaces.
1120 > better than a multipolar Ewald sum for finite-sized reciprocal spaces,
1121 > and physical properties are reproduced accurately.
1122  
1123   As in all purely pairwise cutoff methods, the SP, GSF and TSF methods
1124   are expected to scale approximately {\it linearly} with system size,

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines