ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/oopsePaper/EmpericalEnergy.tex
Revision: 918
Committed: Fri Jan 9 20:57:55 2004 UTC (21 years, 3 months ago) by mmeineke
Content type: application/x-tex
File size: 20330 byte(s)
Log Message:
rotated the lipid figure

added eam to the Emperical Energy

File Contents

# Content
1
2 \section{\label{sec:empericalEnergy}The Emperical Energy Functions}
3
4 \subsection{\label{sec:atomsMolecules}Atoms, Molecules and Rigid Bodies}
5
6 The basic unit of an {\sc oopse} simulation is the atom. The parameters
7 describing the atom are generalized to make the atom as flexible a
8 representation as possible. They may represent specific atoms of an
9 element, or be used for collections of atoms such as a methyl
10 group. The atoms are also capable of having a directional component
11 associated with them, often in the form of a dipole. Charges on atoms
12 are not currently suporrted by {\sc oopse}.
13
14 The second most basic building block of a simulation is the
15 molecule. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to keep track of the atoms
16 in a simulation in logical manner. This particular unit will store the
17 identities of all the atoms associated with itself and is responsible
18 for the evaluation of its own bonded interaction (i.e.~bonds, bends,
19 and torsions).
20
21 As stated in the previously, one of the features that sets OOPSE apart
22 from most of the current molecular simulation packages is the ability
23 to handle rigid body dynamics. Rigid bodies are non-spherical
24 particles or collections of particles that have a constant internal
25 potential and move collectively.\cite{Goldstein01} They are not
26 included in many standard simulation packages because of the need to
27 consider orientational degrees of freedom and include an integrator
28 that accurately propagates these motions in time.
29
30 Moving a rigid body involves determination of both the force and
31 torque applied by the surroundings, which directly affect the
32 translation and rotation in turn. In order to accumulate the total
33 force on a rigid body, the external forces must first be calculated
34 for all the interal particles. The total force on the rigid body is
35 simply the sum of these external forces. Accumulation of the total
36 torque on the rigid body is similar to the force in that it is a sum
37 of the torque applied on each internal particle, mapped onto the
38 center of mass of the rigid body.
39
40 The application of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of
41 the rigid body. In order to move between the space fixed and body
42 fixed coordinate axes, parameters describing the orientation be
43 maintained for each rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix can
44 be described and propagated by the three Euler
45 angles.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid rotational limitations
46 when using Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion'' scheme can
47 be used instead.\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads to
48 performance enhancements, particularly for very small
49 systems.\cite{Evans77} OOPSE utilizes a relatively new scheme that
50 propagates the entire nine parameter rotation matrix. Further
51 discussion on this choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}.
52
53 \subsection{\label{sec:LJPot}The Lennard Jones Potential}
54
55 The most basic force field implemented in OOPSE is the Lennard-Jones
56 potential. The Lennard-Jones potential mimics the attractive forces
57 two charge neutral particles experience when spontaneous dipoles are
58 induced on each other. This is the predominant intermolecular force in
59 systems of such as noble gases and simple alkanes.
60
61 The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
62 \begin{equation}
63 V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
64 4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[
65 \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{12}
66 - \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{6}
67 \biggr]
68 \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
69 \end{equation}
70 Where $r_ij$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$, $\sigma_{ij}$
71 scales the length of the interaction, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the
72 energy well depth of the potential.
73
74 Because the potential is calculated between all pairs, the force
75 evaluation can become computationally expensive for large systems. To
76 keep the pair evaluation to a manegable number, OOPSE employs the use
77 of a cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be
78 $2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest self self length
79 parameter in the system. Truncating the calculation at
80 $r_{\text{cut}}$ introduces a discontinuity into the potential
81 energy. To offset this discontinuity, the energy value at
82 $r_{\text{cut}}$ is subtracted from the entire potential. This causes
83 the equation to go to zero at the cut-off radius.
84
85 Interactions between dissimilar particles requires the generation of
86 cross term parameters for $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$. These are
87 calculated through the Lorentz-Berthelot mixing
88 rules:\cite{allen87:csl}
89 \begin{equation}
90 \sigma_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}[\sigma_{ii} + \sigma_{jj}]
91 \label{eq:sigmaMix}
92 \end{equation}
93 and
94 \begin{equation}
95 \epsilon_{ij} = \sqrt{\epsilon_{ii} \epsilon_{jj}}
96 \label{eq:epsilonMix}
97 \end{equation}
98
99
100 \subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
101
102 The \underline{D}ipolar \underline{U}nified-Atom
103 \underline{F}orce \underline{F}ield ({\sc duff}) was developed to
104 simulate lipid bilayers. We needed a model capable of forming
105 bilayers, while still being sufficiently computationally efficient to
106 allow simulations of large systems ($\approx$100's of phospholipids,
107 $\approx$1000's of waters) for long times ($\approx$10's of
108 nanoseconds).
109
110 With this goal in mind, we have eliminated all point charges. Charge
111 distributions were replaced with dipoles, and charge-neutral
112 distributions were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
113 simplification cuts the length scale of long range interactions from
114 $\frac{1}{r}$ to $\frac{1}{r^3}$, allowing us to avoid the
115 computationally expensive Ewald-Sum. Instead, we can use
116 neighbor-lists and cutoff radii for the dipolar interactions.
117
118 As an example, lipid head groups in {\sc duff} are represented as point
119 dipole interaction sites.PC and PE Lipid head groups are typically
120 zwitterionic in nature, with charges separated by as much as
121 6~$\mbox{\AA}$. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at the head group
122 center of mass, our model mimics the head group of PC.\cite{Cevc87}
123 Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site is located at the
124 pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is illustrated by the dark grey
125 atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
126
127 \begin{figure}
128 \epsfbox{lipidModel.eps}
129 \caption{A representation of the lipid model. $\phi$ is the torsion angle, $\theta$ %
130 is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the head group, and n is the chain length.}
131 \label{fig:lipidModel}
132 \end{figure}
133
134 The water model we use to complement the dipoles of the lipids is
135 the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye \emph{et
136 al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} This model is discussed in greater detail
137 in Sec.~\ref{sec:SSD}. In all cases we reduce water to a single
138 Lennard-Jones interaction site. The site also contains a dipole to
139 mimic the partial charges on the hydrogens and the oxygen. However,
140 what makes the SSD model unique is the inclusion of a tetrahedral
141 short range potential to recover the hydrogen bonding of water, an
142 important factor when modeling bilayers, as it has been shown that
143 hydrogen bond network formation is a leading contribution to the
144 entropic driving force towards lipid bilayer formation.\cite{Cevc87}
145
146
147 Turning to the tails of the phospholipids, we have used a set of
148 scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups with Lennard-Jones
149 sites. For this, we have used the TraPPE force field of Siepmann
150 \emph{et al}.\cite{Siepmann1998} TraPPE is a unified-atom
151 representation of n-alkanes, which is parametrized against phase
152 equilibria using Gibbs Monte Carlo simulation
153 techniques.\cite{Siepmann1998} One of the advantages of TraPPE is that
154 it generalizes the types of atoms in an alkyl chain to keep the number
155 of pseudoatoms to a minimum; the parameters for an atom such as
156 $\text{CH}_2$ do not change depending on what species are bonded to
157 it.
158
159 TraPPE also constrains of all bonds to be of fixed length. Typically,
160 bond vibrations are the fastest motions in a molecular dynamic
161 simulation. Small time steps between force evaluations must be used to
162 ensure adequate sampling of the bond potential conservation of
163 energy. By constraining the bond lengths, larger time steps may be
164 used when integrating the equations of motion.
165
166
167 \subsubsection{\label{subSec:energyFunctions}{\sc duff} Energy Functions}
168
169 The total energy of function in {\sc duff} is given by the following:
170 \begin{equation}
171 V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}
172 + \sum^{N}_{I=1} \sum^{N}_{J=1} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
173 \label{eq:totalPotential}
174 \end{equation}
175 Where $V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}$ is the internal potential of a molecule:
176 \begin{equation}
177 V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} =
178 \sum_{\theta_{ijk} \in I} V_{\text{bend}}(\theta_{ijk})
179 + \sum_{\phi_{ijkl} \in I} V_{\text{torsion}}(\theta_{ijkl})
180 + \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{(j>i+4) \in I}
181 \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) + V_{\text{dipole}}
182 (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
183 \biggr]
184 \label{eq:internalPotential}
185 \end{equation}
186 Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1, 3 bonded pairs
187 within in the molecule. $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion The
188 pairwise portions of the internal potential are excluded for pairs
189 that ar closer than three bonds, i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a
190 torsion are included in the pair-wise loop.
191
192 The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is
193 as follows:
194 \begin{equation}
195 V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
196 \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
197 \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) + V_{\text{dipole}}
198 (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
199 + V_{\text{sticky}}
200 (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
201 \biggr]
202 \label{eq:crossPotentail}
203 \end{equation}
204 Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential,
205 $V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and
206 $V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD model.
207
208 The bend potential of a molecule is represented by the following function:
209 \begin{equation}
210 V_{\theta_{ijk}} = k_{\theta}( \theta_{ijk} - \theta_0 )^2 \label{eq:bendPot}
211 \end{equation}
212 Where $\theta_{ijk}$ is the angle defined by atoms $i$, $j$, and $k$
213 (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}), and $\theta_0$ is the equilibrium
214 bond angle. $k_{\theta}$ is the force constant which determines the
215 strength of the harmonic bend. The parameters for $k_{\theta}$ and
216 $\theta_0$ are based off of those in TraPPE.\cite{Siepmann1998}
217
218 The torsion potential and parameters are also taken from TraPPE. It is
219 of the form:
220 \begin{equation}
221 V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
222 + c_2[1 + \cos(2\phi)]
223 + c_3[1 + \cos(3\phi)]
224 \label{eq:origTorsionPot}
225 \end{equation}
226 Here $\phi_{ijkl}$ is the angle defined by four bonded neighbors $i$,
227 $j$, $k$, and $l$ (again, see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}). However,
228 for computaional efficency, the torsion potentail has been recast
229 after the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series
230 is converted to a power series of the form:
231 \begin{equation}
232 V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) =
233 k_3 \cos^3 \phi + k_2 \cos^2 \phi + k_1 \cos \phi + k_0
234 \label{eq:torsionPot}
235 \end{equation}
236 Where:
237 \begin{align*}
238 k_0 &= c_1 + c_3 \\
239 k_1 &= c_1 - 3c_3 \\
240 k_2 &= 2 c_2 \\
241 k_3 &= 4c_3
242 \end{align*}
243 By recasting the equation to a power series, repeated trigonometric
244 evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the potential.
245
246
247
248 The dipole-dipole potential has the following form:
249 \begin{equation}
250 V_{\text{dipole}}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},
251 \boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j}) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \biggl[
252 \frac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_{j}}{r^{3}_{ij}}
253 -
254 \frac{3(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
255 (\boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
256 {r^{5}_{ij}} \biggr]
257 \label{eq:dipolePot}
258 \end{equation}
259 Here $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the vector starting at atom $i$ pointing
260 towards $j$, and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$
261 are the Euler angles of atom $i$ and $j$
262 respectively. $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ is the dipole vector of atom
263 $i$ it takes its orientation from $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
264
265
266 \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}Water Model: SSD and Derivatives}
267
268 In the interest of computational efficiency, the native solvent used
269 in {\sc oopse} is the Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD) water model. SSD was
270 developed by Ichiye \emph{et al.} as a modified form of the
271 hard-sphere water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and
272 Luzar.\cite{Bratko85,Bratko95} It consists of a single point dipole
273 with a Lennard-Jones core and a sticky potential that directs the
274 particles to assume the proper hydrogen bond orientation in the first
275 solvation shell. Thus, the interaction between two SSD water molecules
276 \emph{i} and \emph{j} is given by the potential
277 \begin{equation}
278 u_{ij} = u_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + u_{ij}^{dp}
279 (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
280 u_{ij}^{sp}
281 (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
282 \end{equation}
283 where the $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the position vector between molecules
284 \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude equal to the distance $r_ij$, and
285 $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$ represent the
286 orientations of the respective molecules. The Lennard-Jones, dipole,
287 and sticky parts of the potential are giving by the following
288 equations,
289 \begin{equation}
290 u_{ij}^{LJ}(r_{ij}) = 4\epsilon \left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{6}\right],
291 \end{equation}
292 \begin{equation}
293 u_{ij}^{dp} = \frac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\mu}_j}{r_{ij}^3}-\frac{3(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij})(\boldsymbol{\mu}_j\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij})}{r_{ij}^5}\ ,
294 \end{equation}
295 \begin{equation}
296 \begin{split}
297 u_{ij}^{sp}
298 (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)
299 &=
300 \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\\
301 & \quad \ +
302 s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)]\ ,
303 \end{split}
304 \end{equation}
305 where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}_j$ are the dipole
306 unit vectors of particles \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude 2.35 D,
307 $\nu_0$ scales the strength of the overall sticky potential, $s$ and
308 $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions. The $w$ and $w^\prime$
309 functions take the following forms,
310 \begin{equation}
311 w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=\sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
312 \end{equation}
313 \begin{equation}
314 w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j) = (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^0,
315 \end{equation}
316 where $w^0 = 0.07715$. The $w$ function is the tetrahedral attractive
317 term that promotes hydrogen bonding orientations within the first
318 solvation shell, and $w^\prime$ is a dipolar repulsion term that
319 repels unrealistic dipolar arrangements within the first solvation
320 shell. A more detailed description of the functional parts and
321 variables in this potential can be found in other
322 articles.\cite{liu96:new_model,chandra99:ssd_md}
323
324 Since SSD is a one-site point dipole model, the force calculations are
325 simplified significantly from a computational standpoint, in that the
326 number of long-range interactions is dramatically reduced. In the
327 original Monte Carlo simulations using this model, Ichiye \emph{et
328 al.} reported a calculation speed up of up to an order of magnitude
329 over other comparable models while maintaining the structural behavior
330 of water.\cite{liu96:new_model} In the original molecular dynamics studies of
331 SSD, it was shown that it actually improves upon the prediction of
332 water's dynamical properties over TIP3P and SPC/E.\cite{chandra99:ssd_md}
333
334 Recent constant pressure simulations revealed issues in the original
335 SSD model that led to lower than expected densities at all target
336 pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} Reparameterizations of the
337 original SSD have resulted in improved density behavior, as well as
338 alterations in the water structure and transport behavior. {\sc oopse} is
339 easily modified to impliment these new potential parameter sets for
340 the derivative water models: SSD1, SSD/E, and SSD/RF. All of the
341 variable parameters are listed in the accompanying BASS file, and
342 these parameters simply need to be changed to the updated values.
343
344
345 \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Model}
346
347 Several molecular dynamics codes\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the
348 capacity to simulate metallic systems, including some that have
349 parallel computational abilities\cite{plimpton93}. Potentials that
350 describe bonding transition metal
351 systems\cite{Finnis84,Ercolessi88,Chen90,Qi99,Ercolessi02} have a
352 attractive interaction which models the stabilization of ``Embedding''
353 a positively charged metal ion in an electron density created by the
354 free valance ``sea'' of electrons created by the surrounding atoms in
355 the system. A mostly repulsive pairwise part of the potential
356 describes the interaction of the positively charged metal core ions
357 with one another. A particular potential description called the
358 Embedded Atom Method\cite{Daw84,FBD86,johnson89,Lu97}(EAM) that has
359 particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in OOPSE. A
360 good review of EAM and other metallic potential formulations was done
361 by Voter.\cite{voter}
362
363 The {\sc eam} potential has the form:
364 \begin{eqnarray}
365 V & = & \sum_{i} F_{i}\left[\rho_{i}\right] + \sum_{i} \sum_{j \neq i}
366 \phi_{ij}({\bf r}_{ij}) \\
367 \rho_{i} & = & \sum_{j \neq i} f_{j}({\bf r}_{ij})
368 \end{eqnarray}
369
370 where $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
371 between atoms $i$ and $j$.In the origional formulation of
372 EAM\cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
373 in later refinements to EAM have shown that nonuniqueness between $F$
374 and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89} The
375 embedding function $F_{i}$ is the energy required to embedded an
376 positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear supeposition of
377 sperically averaged atomic electron densities given by
378 $\rho_{i}$. There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
379 summations in the {\sc eam} equation to the few dozen atoms
380 surrounding atom $i$ for both the density $\rho$ and pairwise $\phi$
381 interactions.
382
383 \subsection{\label{Sec:pbc}Periodic Boundary Conditions}
384
385 \textit{Periodic boundary conditions} are widely used to simulate truly
386 macroscopic systems with a relatively small number of particles. Simulation
387 box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite lattice. During the
388 simulation, when a particle moves in the primary cell, its periodic image
389 particles in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with exactly the
390 same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary cell, one of its
391 images will enter through the opposite face.If the simulation box is large
392 enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetric of the periodic lattice,the surface
393 effect could be ignored. Cubic and parallelepiped are the available periodic
394 cells. \bigskip In OOPSE, we use the matrix instead of the vector to describe
395 the property of the simulation box. Therefore, not only the size of the
396 simulation box could be changed during the simulation, but also the shape of
397 it. The transformation from box space vector $\overrightarrow{s}$ to its
398 corresponding real space vector $\overrightarrow{r}$ is defined by
399 \begin{equation}
400 \overrightarrow{r}=H\overrightarrow{s}%
401 \end{equation}
402
403
404 where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of the three
405 box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the sides of the
406 simulation box respectively.
407
408 To find the minimum image, we need to convert the real vector to its
409 corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip%
410 \begin{equation}
411 \overrightarrow{s}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{r}%
412 \end{equation}
413 And then, each element of $\overrightarrow{s}$ is casted to lie between -0.5
414 to 0.5,
415 \begin{equation}
416 s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-round(s_{i})
417 \end{equation}
418 where%
419
420 \begin{equation}
421 round(x)=\lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{
422 }x\geqslant0
423 \end{equation}
424 %
425
426 \begin{equation}
427 round(x)=\lceil{x-0.5}\rceil\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{ }x<0
428 \end{equation}
429
430
431 For example, $round(3.6)=4$,$round(3.1)=3$, $round(-3.6)=-4$, $round(-3.1)=-3$.
432
433 Finally, we could get the minimum image by transforming back to real space,%
434
435 \begin{equation}
436 \overrightarrow{r^{\prime}}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{s^{\prime}}%
437 \end{equation}