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 937 by mmeineke, Tue Jan 13 20:46:01 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 9 | Line 9 | are not currently suporrted by {\sc oopse}.
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}.
12 > are not currently suported 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 requirement to
27 + propagate the orientational degrees of freedom. Until recently,
28 + integrators which propagate orientational motion have been lacking.
29 +
30 + Moving a rigid body involves determination of both the force and
31 + torque applied by the surroundings, which directly affect the
32 + translational and rotational motion in turn. In order to accumulate
33 + the total force on a rigid body, the external forces and torques must
34 + first be calculated for all the internal particles. The total force on
35 + the rigid body is simply the sum of these external forces.
36 + Accumulation of the total torque on the rigid body is more complex
37 + than the force in that it is the torque applied on the center of mass
38 + that dictates rotational motion. The torque on rigid body {\it i} is
39 + \begin{equation}
40 + \boldsymbol{\tau}_i=
41 +        \sum_{a}(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia}
42 +        + \boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia},
43 + \label{eq:torqueAccumulate}
44 + \end{equation}
45 + where $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque on and
46 + position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$,
47 + $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$, and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}$ are the force on,
48 + position of, and torque on the component particles of the rigid body.
49 +
50 + The summation of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of
51 + the rigid body. In order to move between the space fixed and body
52 + fixed coordinate axes, parameters describing the orientation must be
53 + maintained for each rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix
54 + (\textbf{A}) can be described by the three Euler angles ($\phi,
55 + \theta,$ and $\psi$), where the elements of \textbf{A} are composed of
56 + trigonometric operations involving $\phi, \theta,$ and
57 + $\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid numerical instabilities
58 + inherent in using the Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion''
59 + scheme is often used. The elements of \textbf{A} can be expressed as
60 + arithmetic operations involving the four quaternions ($q_0, q_1, q_2,$
61 + and $q_3$).\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads to
62 + performance enhancements, particularly for very small
63 + systems.\cite{Evans77}
64 +
65 + {\sc oopse} utilizes a relatively new scheme that propagates the
66 + entire nine parameter rotation matrix internally. Further discussion
67 + on this choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}.
68 +
69 + \subsection{\label{sec:LJPot}The Lennard Jones Potential}
70 +
71 + The most basic force field implemented in OOPSE is the Lennard-Jones
72 + potential. The Lennard-Jones potential. Which mimics the Van der Waals
73 + interaction at long distances, and uses an emperical repulsion at
74 + short distances. The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
75 + \begin{equation}
76 + V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
77 +        4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[
78 +        \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{12}
79 +        - \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{6}
80 +        \biggr]
81 + \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
82 + \end{equation}
83 + Where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$,
84 + $\sigma_{ij}$ scales the length of the interaction, and
85 + $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the well depth of the potential.
86 +
87 + Because this potential is calculated between all pairs, the force
88 + evaluation can become computationally expensive for large systems. To
89 + keep the pair evaluation to a manegable number, OOPSE employs a
90 + cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be
91 + $2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest Lennard-Jones length
92 + parameter in the system. Truncating the calculation at
93 + $r_{\text{cut}}$ introduces a discontinuity into the potential
94 + energy. To offset this discontinuity, the energy value at
95 + $r_{\text{cut}}$ is subtracted from the entire potential. This causes
96 + the potential to go to zero at the cut-off radius.
97 +
98 + Interactions between dissimilar particles requires the generation of
99 + cross term parameters for $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$. These are
100 + calculated through the Lorentz-Berthelot mixing
101 + rules:\cite{allen87:csl}
102 + \begin{equation}
103 + \sigma_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}[\sigma_{ii} + \sigma_{jj}]
104 + \label{eq:sigmaMix}
105 + \end{equation}
106 + and
107 + \begin{equation}
108 + \epsilon_{ij} = \sqrt{\epsilon_{ii} \epsilon_{jj}}
109 + \label{eq:epsilonMix}
110 + \end{equation}
111 +
112 +
113   \subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
114  
115 < The \underline{D}ipolar \underline{U}nified-Atom
116 < \underline{F}orce \underline{F}ield ({\sc duff}) was developed to
25 < simulate lipid bilayers. We needed a model capable of forming
115 > The Dipolar Unified-atom Force Field ({\sc duff}) was developed to
116 > simulate lipid bilayers. The systems require a model capable of forming
117   bilayers, while still being sufficiently computationally efficient to
118   allow simulations of large systems ($\approx$100's of phospholipids,
119   $\approx$1000's of waters) for long times ($\approx$10's of
120   nanoseconds).
121  
122 < With this goal in mind, we have eliminated all point charges. Charge
123 < distributions were replaced with dipoles, and charge-neutral
124 < distributions were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
122 > With this goal in mind, {\sc duff} has no point charges. Charge
123 > neutral distributions were replaced with dipoles, while most atoms and
124 > groups of atoms were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
125   simplification cuts the length scale of long range interactions from
126   $\frac{1}{r}$ to $\frac{1}{r^3}$, allowing us to avoid the
127 < computationally expensive Ewald-Sum. Instead, we can use
128 < neighbor-lists and cutoff radii for the dipolar interactions.
127 > computationally expensive Ewald sum. Instead, we can use
128 > neighbor-lists, reaction field, and cutoff radii for the dipolar
129 > interactions.
130  
131 < As an example, lipid head groups in {\sc duff} are represented as point
132 < dipole interaction sites.PC and PE Lipid head groups are typically
133 < zwitterionic in nature, with charges separated by as much as
134 < 6~$\mbox{\AA}$. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at the head group
135 < center of mass, our model mimics the head group of PC.\cite{Cevc87}
136 < Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site is located at the
137 < pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is illustrated by the dark grey
138 < atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
131 > As an example, lipid head-groups in {\sc duff} are represented as
132 > point dipole interaction sites. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at
133 > the head group center of mass, our model mimics the head group of
134 > phosphatidylcholine.\cite{Cevc87} Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site
135 > is located at the pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is
136 > illustrated by the dark grey atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}. The water model we use to complement the dipoles of the lipids is out
137 > repaarameterization of the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye
138 > \emph{et al.}\cite{liu96:new_model}
139  
140   \begin{figure}
141 < \epsfxsize=6in
142 < \epsfbox{lipidModel.epsi}
141 > \epsfxsize=\linewidth
142 > \epsfbox{lipidModel.eps}
143   \caption{A representation of the lipid model. $\phi$ is the torsion angle, $\theta$ %
144 < is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the head group, and n is the chain length.}
144 > is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the head group, and n
145 > is the chain length.}
146   \label{fig:lipidModel}
147   \end{figure}
148  
56 The water model we use to complement the dipoles of the lipids is
57 the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye \emph{et
58 al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} This model is discussed in greater detail
59 in Sec.~\ref{sec:SSD}. In all cases we reduce water to a single
60 Lennard-Jones interaction site. The site also contains a dipole to
61 mimic the partial charges on the hydrogens and the oxygen. However,
62 what makes the SSD model unique is the inclusion of a tetrahedral
63 short range potential to recover the hydrogen bonding of water, an
64 important factor when modeling bilayers, as it has been shown that
65 hydrogen bond network formation is a leading contribution to the
66 entropic driving force towards lipid bilayer formation.\cite{Cevc87}
67
68
149   Turning to the tails of the phospholipids, we have used a set of
150   scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups with Lennard-Jones
151   sites. For this, we have used the TraPPE force field of Siepmann
# Line 91 | Line 171 | V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Interna
171   The total energy of function in {\sc duff} is given by the following:
172   \begin{equation}
173   V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}
174 <        + \sum^{N}_{I=1} \sum^{N}_{J=1} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
174 >        + \sum^{N}_{I=1} \sum_{J>I} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
175   \label{eq:totalPotential}
176   \end{equation}
177   Where $V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}$ is the internal potential of a molecule:
178   \begin{equation}
179   V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} =
180          \sum_{\theta_{ijk} \in I} V_{\text{bend}}(\theta_{ijk})
181 <        + \sum_{\phi_{ijkl} \in I} V_{\text{torsion}}(\theta_{ijkl})
181 >        + \sum_{\phi_{ijkl} \in I} V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl})
182          + \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{(j>i+4) \in I}
183          \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
184          (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
# Line 106 | Line 186 | within in the molecule. $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the to
186   \label{eq:internalPotential}
187   \end{equation}
188   Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1, 3 bonded pairs
189 < within in the molecule. $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion The
190 < pairwise portions of the internal potential are excluded for pairs
191 < that ar closer than three bonds, i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a
192 < torsion are included in the pair-wise loop.
189 > within the molecule, and $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion potential
190 > for all 1, 4 bonded pairs. The pairwise portions of the internal
191 > potential are excluded for pairs that are closer than three bonds,
192 > i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a torsion are included in the
193 > pair-wise loop.
194  
114 The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is
115 as follows:
116 \begin{equation}
117 V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
118        \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
119        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
120        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
121        + V_{\text{sticky}}
122        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
123        \biggr]
124 \label{eq:crossPotentail}
125 \end{equation}
126 Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential,
127 $V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and
128 $V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD model.
195  
196   The bend potential of a molecule is represented by the following function:
197   \begin{equation}
# Line 140 | Line 206 | V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
206   The torsion potential and parameters are also taken from TraPPE. It is
207   of the form:
208   \begin{equation}
209 < V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
209 > V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
210          + c_2[1 + \cos(2\phi)]
211          + c_3[1 + \cos(3\phi)]
212   \label{eq:origTorsionPot}
213   \end{equation}
214   Here $\phi_{ijkl}$ is the angle defined by four bonded neighbors $i$,
215 < $j$, $k$, and $l$ (again, see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}).  However,
216 < for computaional efficency, the torsion potentail has been recast
217 < after the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series
218 < is converted to a power series of the form:
215 > $j$, $k$, and $l$ (again, see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}). For
216 > computaional efficency, the torsion potential has been recast after
217 > the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series is
218 > converted to a power series of the form:
219   \begin{equation}
220   V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) =  
221          k_3 \cos^3 \phi + k_2 \cos^2 \phi + k_1 \cos \phi + k_0
# Line 165 | Line 231 | The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
231   By recasting the equation to a power series, repeated trigonometric
232   evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the potential.
233  
234 < The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
234 >
235 > The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is
236 > as follows:
237   \begin{equation}
238 < V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
239 <        4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[
240 <        \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{12}
241 <        - \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{6}
238 > V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
239 >        \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
240 >        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
241 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
242 >        + V_{\text{sticky}}
243 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
244          \biggr]
245 < \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
245 > \label{eq:crossPotentail}
246   \end{equation}
247 < Where $r_ij$ is the distance between atoms $i$ and $j$, $\sigma_{ij}$
248 < scales the length of the interaction, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the
249 < energy of the potential.
247 > Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential,
248 > $V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and
249 > $V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD
250 > model. Note that not all atom types include all interactions.
251  
252   The dipole-dipole potential has the following form:
253   \begin{equation}
254   V_{\text{dipole}}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},
255 <        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j}) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \biggl[
256 <        \frac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_{j}}{r^{3}_{ij}}
255 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j}) = \frac{|\mu_i||\mu_j|}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}r_{ij}^{3}} \biggl[
256 >        \boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_{j}
257          -
258 <        \frac{3(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
259 <                (\boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
260 <                {r^{5}_{ij}} \biggr]
258 >        \frac{3(\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
259 >                (\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
260 >                {r^{2}_{ij}} \biggr]
261   \label{eq:dipolePot}
262   \end{equation}
263   Here $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the vector starting at atom $i$ pointing
264   towards $j$, and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$
265 < are the Euler angles of atom $i$ and $j$
266 < respectively. $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ is the dipole vector of atom
267 < $i$ it takes its orientation from $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
265 > are the Euler angles of atom $i$ and $j$ respectively. $|\mu_i|$ is
266 > the magnitude of the dipole moment of atom $i$ and
267 > $\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i$ is the standard unit orientation vector of
268 > $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
269  
270  
271 < \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}Water Model: SSD and Derivatives}
271 > \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}The {\sc DUFF} Water Models: SSD/E and SSD/RF}
272  
273 < In the interest of computational efficiency, the native solvent used
273 > In the interest of computational efficiency, the default solvent used
274   in {\sc oopse} is the Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD) water model. SSD was
275   developed by Ichiye \emph{et al.} as a modified form of the
276   hard-sphere water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and
# Line 208 | Line 280 | u_{ij} = u_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + u_{ij}^{dp}
280   solvation shell. Thus, the interaction between two SSD water molecules
281   \emph{i} and \emph{j} is given by the potential
282   \begin{equation}
283 < u_{ij} = u_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + u_{ij}^{dp}
284 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
285 < u_{ij}^{sp}
286 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
283 > V_{ij} =
284 >        V_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + V_{ij}^{dp}
285 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
286 >        V_{ij}^{sp}
287 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
288 > \label{eq:ssdPot}
289   \end{equation}
290   where the $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the position vector between molecules
291 < \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude equal to the distance $r_ij$, and
291 > \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude equal to the distance $r_{ij}$, and
292   $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$ represent the
293 < orientations of the respective molecules. The Lennard-Jones, dipole,
294 < and sticky parts of the potential are giving by the following
295 < equations,
293 > orientations of the respective molecules. The Lennard-Jones and dipole
294 > parts of the potential are given by equations \ref{eq:lennardJonesPot}
295 > and \ref{eq:dipolePot} respectively. The sticky part is described by
296 > the following,
297   \begin{equation}
298 < u_{ij}^{LJ}(r_{ij}) = 4\epsilon \left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{6}\right],
298 > u_{ij}^{sp}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=
299 >        \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
300 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j) +
301 >        s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
302 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)]\ ,
303 > \label{eq:stickyPot}
304   \end{equation}
305 + where $\nu_0$ is a strength parameter for the sticky potential, and
306 + $s$ and $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions which turn off the
307 + sticky interaction beyond the first solvation shell. The $w$ function
308 + can be thought of as an attractive potential with tetrahedral
309 + geometry:
310   \begin{equation}
311 < 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}\ ,
311 > w({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
312 >        \sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
313 > \label{eq:stickyW}
314   \end{equation}
315 + while the $w^\prime$ function counters the normal aligned and
316 + anti-aligned structures favored by point dipoles:
317   \begin{equation}
318 < \begin{split}
319 < u_{ij}^{sp}
320 < (\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}
318 > w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
319 >        (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^0,
320 > \label{eq:stickyWprime}
321   \end{equation}
322 < where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}_j$ are the dipole
323 < unit vectors of particles \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude 2.35 D,
324 < $\nu_0$ scales the strength of the overall sticky potential, $s$ and
325 < $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions. The $w$ and $w^\prime$
326 < functions take the following forms,
322 > It should be noted that $w$ is proportional to the sum of the $Y_3^2$
323 > and $Y_3^{-2}$ spherical harmonics (a linear combination which
324 > enhances the tetrahedral geometry for hydrogen bonded structures),
325 > while $w^\prime$ is a purely empirical function.  A more detailed
326 > description of the functional parts and variables in this potential
327 > can be found in the original SSD
328 > articles.\cite{Ichiye96,Ichiye96b,Ichiye99,Ichiye03}
329 >
330 > Since SSD is a single-point {\it dipolar} model, the force
331 > calculations are simplified significantly relative to the standard
332 > {\it charged} multi-point models. In the original Monte Carlo
333 > simulations using this model, Ichiye {\it et al.} reported that using
334 > SSD decreased computer time by a factor of 6-7 compared to other
335 > models.\cite{Ichiye96} What is most impressive is that this savings
336 > did not come at the expense of accurate depiction of the liquid state
337 > properties.  Indeed, SSD maintains reasonable agreement with the Soper
338 > data for the structural features of liquid
339 > water.\cite{Soper86,Ichiye96} Additionally, the dynamical properties
340 > exhibited by SSD agree with experiment better than those of more
341 > computationally expensive models (like TIP3P and
342 > SPC/E).\cite{Ichiye99} The combination of speed and accurate depiction
343 > of solvent properties makes SSD a very attractive model for the
344 > simulation of large scale biochemical simulations.
345 >
346 > Recent constant pressure simulations revealed issues in the original
347 > SSD model that led to lower than expected densities at all target
348 > pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} The default model in {\sc oopse}
349 > is SSD/E, a density corrected derivative of SSD that exhibits improved
350 > liquid structure and transport behavior. If the use of a reaction
351 > field long-range interaction correction is desired, it is recommended
352 > that the parameters be modified to those of the SSD/RF model. Solvent
353 > parameters can be easily modified in an accompanying {\sc BASS} file
354 > as illustrated in the scheme below. A table of the parameter values
355 > and the drawbacks and benefits of the different density corrected SSD
356 > models can be found in reference \ref{Gezelter04}.
357 >
358 > !!!Place a {\sc BASS} scheme showing SSD parameters around here!!!
359 >
360 > \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Method}
361 >
362 > Several other molecular dynamics packages\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the
363 > capacity to simulate metallic systems, including some that have
364 > parallel computational abilities\cite{plimpton93}. Potentials that
365 > describe bonding transition metal
366 > systems\cite{Finnis84,Ercolessi88,Chen90,Qi99,Ercolessi02} have a
367 > attractive interaction which models  ``Embedding''
368 > a positively charged metal ion in the electron density due to the
369 > free valance ``sea'' of electrons created by the surrounding atoms in
370 > the system. A mostly repulsive pairwise part of the potential
371 > describes the interaction of the positively charged metal core ions
372 > with one another. A particular potential description called the
373 > Embedded Atom Method\cite{Daw84,FBD86,johnson89,Lu97}({\sc eam}) that has
374 > particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in OOPSE. A
375 > good review of {\sc eam} and other metallic potential formulations was done
376 > by Voter.\cite{voter}
377 >
378 > The {\sc eam} potential has the form:
379 > \begin{eqnarray}
380 > V & = & \sum_{i} F_{i}\left[\rho_{i}\right] + \sum_{i} \sum_{j \neq i}
381 > \phi_{ij}({\bf r}_{ij})  \\
382 > \rho_{i}  & = & \sum_{j \neq i} f_{j}({\bf r}_{ij})
383 > \end{eqnarray}S
384 >
385 > where $F_{i} $ is the embedding function that equates the energy required to embed a
386 > positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear superposition of
387 > sperically averaged atomic electron densities given by
388 > $\rho_{i}$.  $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
389 > between atoms $i$ and $j$. In the original formulation of
390 > {\sc eam} cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
391 > in later refinements to EAM have shown that non-uniqueness between $F$
392 > and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89}
393 > There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
394 > summations in the {\sc eam} equation to the few dozen atoms
395 > surrounding atom $i$ for both the density $\rho$ and pairwise $\phi$
396 > interactions. Foiles et al. fit EAM potentials for fcc metals Cu, Ag, Au, Ni, Pd, Pt and alloys of these metals\cite{FDB86}. These potential fits are in the DYNAMO 86 format and are included with {\sc oopse}.
397 >
398 >
399 > \subsection{\label{Sec:pbc}Periodic Boundary Conditions}
400 >
401 > \newcommand{\roundme}{\operatorname{round}}
402 >
403 > \textit{Periodic boundary conditions} are widely used to simulate truly
404 > macroscopic systems with a relatively small number of particles. The
405 > simulation box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite
406 > lattice.  During the simulation, when a particle moves in the primary
407 > cell, its image in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with
408 > exactly the same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary
409 > cell, one of its images will enter through the opposite face.If the
410 > simulation box is large enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetries of
411 > the periodic lattice, surface effects can be ignored. Cubic,
412 > orthorhombic and parallelepiped are the available periodic cells In
413 > OOPSE. We use a matrix to describe the property of the simulation
414 > box. Therefore, both the size and shape of the simulation box can be
415 > changed during the simulation. The transformation from box space
416 > vector $\mathbf{s}$ to its corresponding real space vector
417 > $\mathbf{r}$ is defined by
418   \begin{equation}
419 < w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=\sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
419 > \mathbf{r}=\underline{\underline{H}}\cdot\mathbf{s}%
420   \end{equation}
421 +
422 +
423 + where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of
424 + the three box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the
425 + three sides of the simulation box respectively.
426 +
427 + To find the minimum image, we convert the real vector to its
428 + corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip%
429   \begin{equation}
430 < 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,
430 > \mathbf{s}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{r}%
431   \end{equation}
432 < where $w^0 = 0.07715$. The $w$ function is the tetrahedral attractive
433 < term that promotes hydrogen bonding orientations within the first
434 < solvation shell, and $w^\prime$ is a dipolar repulsion term that
435 < repels unrealistic dipolar arrangements within the first solvation
436 < 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}
432 > And then, each element of $\mathbf{s}$ is wrapped to lie between -0.5 to 0.5,
433 > \begin{equation}
434 > s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-\roundme(s_{i})
435 > \end{equation}
436 > where
437  
438 < Since SSD is a one-site point dipole model, the force calculations are
258 < simplified significantly from a computational standpoint, in that the
259 < number of long-range interactions is dramatically reduced. In the
260 < original Monte Carlo simulations using this model, Ichiye \emph{et
261 < al.} reported a calculation speed up of up to an order of magnitude
262 < over other comparable models while maintaining the structural behavior
263 < of water.\cite{liu96:new_model} In the original molecular dynamics studies of
264 < SSD, it was shown that it actually improves upon the prediction of
265 < water's dynamical properties over TIP3P and SPC/E.\cite{chandra99:ssd_md}
438 > %
439  
440 < Recent constant pressure simulations revealed issues in the original
441 < SSD model that led to lower than expected densities at all target
442 < pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} Reparameterizations of the
443 < original SSD have resulted in improved density behavior, as well as
444 < alterations in the water structure and transport behavior. {\sc oopse} is
445 < easily modified to impliment these new potential parameter sets for
446 < the derivative water models: SSD1, SSD/E, and SSD/RF. All of the
447 < variable parameters are listed in the accompanying BASS file, and
448 < these parameters simply need to be changed to the updated values.
440 > \begin{equation}
441 > \roundme(x)=\left\{
442 > \begin{array}{cc}
443 > \lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor & \text{if \ }x\geqslant0\\
444 > \lceil{x-0.5}\rceil & \text{otherwise}%
445 > \end{array}
446 > \right.
447 > \end{equation}
448 > For example, $\roundme(3.6)=4$, $\roundme(3.1)=3$, $\roundme(-3.6)=-4$,
449 > $\roundme(-3.1)=-3$.
450  
451 + Finally, we obtain the minimum image coordinates by transforming back
452 + to real space,%
453  
454 < \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Model}
454 > \begin{equation}
455 > \mathbf{r}^{\prime}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{s}^{\prime}%
456 > \end{equation}
457  
280 here there be Monsters

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines