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

Comparing trunk/oopsePaper/EmpericalEnergy.tex (file contents):
Revision 899 by mmeineke, Tue Jan 6 18:53:58 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 925 by chrisfen, Mon Jan 12 18:43:56 2004 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1  
2   \section{\label{sec:empericalEnergy}The Emperical Energy Functions}
3  
4 < \subsection{\label{sec:atomsMolecules}Atoms and Molecules}
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
# Line 12 | Line 12 | molecule. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to kee
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).
15 > molecule. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to keep track of the
16 > atoms in a simulation in logical manner. This particular unit will
17 > store the identities of all the atoms associated with itself and is
18 > responsible for the evaluation of its own bonded interaction
19 > (i.e.~bonds, bends, and torsions).
20  
21 + As stated previously, one of the features that sets {\sc 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 most 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 internal 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 more complex than the force in that it is
37 + the torque applied on the center of mass that dictates rotational
38 + motion. The summation of this torque is given by
39 + \begin{equation}
40 + \mathbf{\tau}_i=
41 +        \sum_{a}(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia},
42 + \label{eq:torqueAccumulate}
43 + \end{equation}
44 + where $\mathbf{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque about and
45 + position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$
46 + and $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$ are the force on and position of the component
47 + particles of the rigid body.\cite{allen87:csl}
48 +
49 + The application of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of
50 + the rigid body. In order to move between the space fixed and body
51 + fixed coordinate axes, parameters describing the orientation must be
52 + maintained for each rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix
53 + (\textbf{A}) can be described and propagated by the three Euler angles
54 + ($\phi, \theta, \text{and} \psi$), where \textbf{A} is composed of
55 + trigonometric operations involving $\phi, \theta,$ and
56 + $\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid rotational limitations
57 + inherent in using the Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion''
58 + scheme can be used instead, where \textbf{A} is composed of arithmetic
59 + operations involving the four components of a quaternion ($q_0, q_1,
60 + q_2, \text{and} q_3$).\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads
61 + to performance enhancements, particularly for very small
62 + systems.\cite{Evans77}
63 +
64 + {\sc OOPSE} utilizes a relatively new scheme that uses the entire nine
65 + parameter rotation matrix internally. Further discussion on this
66 + choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}.
67 +
68 + \subsection{\label{sec:LJPot}The Lennard Jones Potential}
69 +
70 + The most basic force field implemented in OOPSE is the Lennard-Jones
71 + potential. The Lennard-Jones potential mimics the attractive forces
72 + two charge neutral particles experience when spontaneous dipoles are
73 + induced on each other. This is the predominant intermolecular force in
74 + systems of such as noble gases and simple alkanes.
75 +
76 + The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
77 + \begin{equation}
78 + V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
79 +        4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[
80 +        \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{12}
81 +        - \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{6}
82 +        \biggr]
83 + \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
84 + \end{equation}
85 + Where $r_ij$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$, $\sigma_{ij}$
86 + scales the length of the interaction, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the
87 + energy well depth of the potential.
88 +
89 + Because the potential is calculated between all pairs, the force
90 + evaluation can become computationally expensive for large systems. To
91 + keep the pair evaluation to a manegable number, OOPSE employs the use
92 + of a cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be
93 + $2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest self self length
94 + parameter in the system. Truncating the calculation at
95 + $r_{\text{cut}}$ introduces a discontinuity into the potential
96 + energy. To offset this discontinuity, the energy value at
97 + $r_{\text{cut}}$ is subtracted from the entire potential. This causes
98 + the equation to go to zero at the cut-off radius.
99 +
100 + Interactions between dissimilar particles requires the generation of
101 + cross term parameters for $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$. These are
102 + calculated through the Lorentz-Berthelot mixing
103 + rules:\cite{allen87:csl}
104 + \begin{equation}
105 + \sigma_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}[\sigma_{ii} + \sigma_{jj}]
106 + \label{eq:sigmaMix}
107 + \end{equation}
108 + and
109 + \begin{equation}
110 + \epsilon_{ij} = \sqrt{\epsilon_{ii} \epsilon_{jj}}
111 + \label{eq:epsilonMix}
112 + \end{equation}
113 +
114 +
115   \subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
116  
117   The \underline{D}ipolar \underline{U}nified-Atom
# Line 46 | Line 140 | atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
140   atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
141  
142   \begin{figure}
143 < \epsfxsize=6in
50 < \epsfbox{lipidModel.epsi}
143 > \epsfbox{lipidModel.eps}
144   \caption{A representation of the lipid model. $\phi$ is the torsion angle, $\theta$ %
145   is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the head group, and n is the chain length.}
146   \label{fig:lipidModel}
# Line 165 | Line 258 | The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
258   By recasting the equation to a power series, repeated trigonometric
259   evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the potential.
260  
168 The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
169 \begin{equation}
170 V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
171        4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[
172        \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{12}
173        - \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{6}
174        \biggr]
175 \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
176 \end{equation}
177 Where $r_ij$ is the distance between atoms $i$ and $j$, $\sigma_{ij}$
178 scales the length of the interaction, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the
179 energy of the potential.
261  
262 +
263   The dipole-dipole potential has the following form:
264   \begin{equation}
265   V_{\text{dipole}}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},
# Line 196 | Line 278 | $i$ it takes its orientation from $\boldsymbol{\Omega}
278   $i$ it takes its orientation from $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
279  
280  
281 < \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}Water Model: SSD and Derivatives}
281 > \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}The {\sc DUFF} Water Models: SSD/E and SSD/RF}
282  
283 < In the interest of computational efficiency, the native solvent used
283 > In the interest of computational efficiency, the default solvent used
284   in {\sc oopse} is the Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD) water model. SSD was
285   developed by Ichiye \emph{et al.} as a modified form of the
286   hard-sphere water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and
# Line 208 | Line 290 | u_{ij} = u_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + u_{ij}^{dp}
290   solvation shell. Thus, the interaction between two SSD water molecules
291   \emph{i} and \emph{j} is given by the potential
292   \begin{equation}
293 < u_{ij} = u_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + u_{ij}^{dp}
294 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
295 < u_{ij}^{sp}
296 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
293 > V_{ij} =
294 >        V_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + V_{ij}^{dp}
295 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
296 >        V_{ij}^{sp}
297 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
298 > \label{eq:ssdPot}
299   \end{equation}
300   where the $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the position vector between molecules
301 < \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude equal to the distance $r_ij$, and
301 > \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude equal to the distance $r_{ij}$, and
302   $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$ represent the
303 < orientations of the respective molecules. The Lennard-Jones, dipole,
304 < and sticky parts of the potential are giving by the following
305 < equations,
303 > orientations of the respective molecules. The Lennard-Jones and dipole
304 > parts of the potential are given by equations \ref{eq:lennardJonesPot}
305 > and \ref{eq:dipolePot} respectively. The sticky part is described by
306 > the following,
307   \begin{equation}
308 < u_{ij}^{LJ}(r_{ij}) = 4\epsilon \left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{6}\right],
308 > u_{ij}^{sp}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=
309 >        \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
310 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j) +
311 >        s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
312 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)]\ ,
313 > \label{eq:stickyPot}
314   \end{equation}
315 + where $\nu_0$ is a strength parameter for the sticky potential, and
316 + $s$ and $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions which turn off the
317 + sticky interaction beyond the first solvation shell. The $w$ function
318 + can be thought of as an attractive potential with tetrahedral
319 + geometry:
320   \begin{equation}
321 < 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}\ ,
321 > w({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
322 >        \sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
323 > \label{eq:stickyW}
324   \end{equation}
325 + while the $w^\prime$ function counters the normal aligned and
326 + anti-aligned structures favored by point dipoles:
327   \begin{equation}
328 < \begin{split}
329 < u_{ij}^{sp}
330 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)
232 < &=
233 < \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\\
234 < & \quad \ +
235 < s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)]\ ,
236 < \end{split}
328 > w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
329 >        (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^0,
330 > \label{eq:stickyWprime}
331   \end{equation}
332 < where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}_j$ are the dipole
333 < unit vectors of particles \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude 2.35 D,
334 < $\nu_0$ scales the strength of the overall sticky potential, $s$ and
335 < $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions. The $w$ and $w^\prime$
336 < functions take the following forms,
337 < \begin{equation}
338 < w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=\sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
245 < \end{equation}
246 < \begin{equation}
247 < 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,
248 < \end{equation}
249 < where $w^0 = 0.07715$. The $w$ function is the tetrahedral attractive
250 < term that promotes hydrogen bonding orientations within the first
251 < solvation shell, and $w^\prime$ is a dipolar repulsion term that
252 < repels unrealistic dipolar arrangements within the first solvation
253 < shell. A more detailed description of the functional parts and
254 < variables in this potential can be found in other
255 < articles.\cite{liu96:new_model,chandra99:ssd_md}
332 > It should be noted that $w$ is proportional to the sum of the $Y_3^2$
333 > and $Y_3^{-2}$ spherical harmonics (a linear combination which
334 > enhances the tetrahedral geometry for hydrogen bonded structures),
335 > while $w^\prime$ is a purely empirical function.  A more detailed
336 > description of the functional parts and variables in this potential
337 > can be found in the original SSD
338 > articles.\cite{Ichiye96,Ichiye96b,Ichiye99,Ichiye03}
339  
340 < Since SSD is a one-site point dipole model, the force calculations are
341 < simplified significantly from a computational standpoint, in that the
342 < number of long-range interactions is dramatically reduced. In the
343 < original Monte Carlo simulations using this model, Ichiye \emph{et
344 < al.} reported a calculation speed up of up to an order of magnitude
345 < over other comparable models while maintaining the structural behavior
346 < of water.\cite{liu96:new_model} In the original molecular dynamics studies of
347 < SSD, it was shown that it actually improves upon the prediction of
348 < water's dynamical properties over TIP3P and SPC/E.\cite{chandra99:ssd_md}
340 > Since SSD is a single-point {\it dipolar} model, the force
341 > calculations are simplified significantly relative to the standard
342 > {\it charged} multi-point models. In the original Monte Carlo
343 > simulations using this model, Ichiye {\it et al.} reported that using
344 > SSD decreased computer time by a factor of 6-7 compared to other
345 > models.\cite{Ichiye96} What is most impressive is that this savings
346 > did not come at the expense of accurate depiction of the liquid state
347 > properties.  Indeed, SSD maintains reasonable agreement with the Soper
348 > data for the structural features of liquid
349 > water.\cite{Soper86,Ichiye96} Additionally, the dynamical properties
350 > exhibited by SSD agree with experiment better than those of more
351 > computationally expensive models (like TIP3P and
352 > SPC/E).\cite{Ichiye99} The combination of speed and accurate depiction
353 > of solvent properties makes SSD a very attractive model for the
354 > simulation of large scale biochemical simulations.
355  
356   Recent constant pressure simulations revealed issues in the original
357   SSD model that led to lower than expected densities at all target
358 < pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} Reparameterizations of the
359 < original SSD have resulted in improved density behavior, as well as
360 < alterations in the water structure and transport behavior. {\sc oopse} is
361 < easily modified to impliment these new potential parameter sets for
362 < the derivative water models: SSD1, SSD/E, and SSD/RF. All of the
363 < variable parameters are listed in the accompanying BASS file, and
364 < these parameters simply need to be changed to the updated values.
358 > pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} The default model in {\sc oopse}
359 > is SSD/E, a density corrected derivative of SSD that exhibits improved
360 > liquid structure and transport behavior. If the use of a reaction
361 > field long-range interaction correction is desired, it is recommended
362 > that the parameters be modified to those of the SSD/RF model. Solvent
363 > parameters can be easily modified in an accompanying {\sc BASS} file
364 > as illustrated in the scheme below. A table of the parameter values
365 > and the drawbacks and benefits of the different density corrected SSD
366 > models can be found in reference \ref{Gezelter04}.
367  
368 + !!!Place a {\sc BASS} scheme showing SSD parameters around here!!!
369  
370   \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Model}
371  
372 < here there be Monsters
372 > Several molecular dynamics codes\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the
373 > capacity to simulate metallic systems, including some that have
374 > parallel computational abilities\cite{plimpton93}. Potentials that
375 > describe bonding transition metal
376 > systems\cite{Finnis84,Ercolessi88,Chen90,Qi99,Ercolessi02} have a
377 > attractive interaction which models the stabilization of ``Embedding''
378 > a positively charged metal ion in an electron density created by the
379 > free valance ``sea'' of electrons created by the surrounding atoms in
380 > the system. A mostly repulsive pairwise part of the potential
381 > describes the interaction of the positively charged metal core ions
382 > with one another. A particular potential description called the
383 > Embedded Atom Method\cite{Daw84,FBD86,johnson89,Lu97}(EAM) that has
384 > particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in OOPSE. A
385 > good review of EAM and other metallic potential formulations was done
386 > by Voter.\cite{voter}
387 >
388 > The {\sc eam} potential has the form:
389 > \begin{eqnarray}
390 > V & = & \sum_{i} F_{i}\left[\rho_{i}\right] + \sum_{i} \sum_{j \neq i}
391 > \phi_{ij}({\bf r}_{ij})  \\
392 > \rho_{i}  & = & \sum_{j \neq i} f_{j}({\bf r}_{ij})
393 > \end{eqnarray}
394 >
395 > where $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
396 > between atoms $i$ and $j$.In the origional formulation of
397 > EAM\cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
398 > in later refinements to EAM have shown that nonuniqueness between $F$
399 > and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89} The
400 > embedding function $F_{i}$ is the energy required to embedded an
401 > positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear supeposition of
402 > sperically averaged atomic electron densities given by
403 > $\rho_{i}$. There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
404 > summations in the {\sc eam} equation to the few dozen atoms
405 > surrounding atom $i$ for both the density $\rho$ and pairwise $\phi$
406 > interactions.
407 >
408 > \subsection{\label{Sec:pbc}Periodic Boundary Conditions}
409 >
410 > \textit{Periodic boundary conditions} are widely used to simulate truly
411 > macroscopic systems with a relatively small number of particles. Simulation
412 > box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite lattice. During the
413 > simulation, when a particle moves in the primary cell, its periodic image
414 > particles in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with exactly the
415 > same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary cell, one of its
416 > images will enter through the opposite face.If the simulation box is large
417 > enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetric of the periodic lattice,the surface
418 > effect could be ignored. Cubic and parallelepiped are the available periodic
419 > cells. \bigskip In OOPSE, we use the matrix instead of the vector to describe
420 > the property of the simulation box. Therefore, not only the size of the
421 > simulation box could be changed during the simulation, but also the shape of
422 > it. The transformation from box space vector $\overrightarrow{s}$ to its
423 > corresponding real space vector $\overrightarrow{r}$ is defined by
424 > \begin{equation}
425 > \overrightarrow{r}=H\overrightarrow{s}%
426 > \end{equation}
427 >
428 >
429 > where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of the three
430 > box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the sides of the
431 > simulation box respectively.
432 >
433 > To find the minimum image, we need to convert the real vector to its
434 > corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip%
435 > \begin{equation}
436 > \overrightarrow{s}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{r}%
437 > \end{equation}
438 > And then, each element of $\overrightarrow{s}$ is casted to lie between -0.5
439 > to 0.5,
440 > \begin{equation}
441 > s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-round(s_{i})
442 > \end{equation}
443 > where%
444 >
445 > \begin{equation}
446 > round(x)=\lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{
447 > }x\geqslant0
448 > \end{equation}
449 > %
450 >
451 > \begin{equation}
452 > round(x)=\lceil{x-0.5}\rceil\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{ }x<0
453 > \end{equation}
454 >
455 >
456 > For example, $round(3.6)=4$,$round(3.1)=3$, $round(-3.6)=-4$, $round(-3.1)=-3$.
457 >
458 > Finally, we could get the minimum image by transforming back to real space,%
459 >
460 > \begin{equation}
461 > \overrightarrow{r^{\prime}}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{s^{\prime}}%
462 > \end{equation}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines