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

Comparing trunk/ssdePaper/nptSSD.tex (file contents):
Revision 921 by gezelter, Mon Jan 12 16:20:53 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 1019 by chrisfen, Wed Feb 4 20:19:21 2004 UTC

# Line 139 | Line 139 | + s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i
139   \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)
140   + s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf
141   \Omega}_j)]\ .
142 + \label{stickyfunction}
143   \end{equation}
144   Here, $\nu_0$ is a strength parameter for the sticky potential, and
145   $s$ and $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions which turn off the
# Line 151 | Line 152 | w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j) =
152   while the $w^\prime$ function counters the normal aligned and
153   anti-aligned structures favored by point dipoles:
154   \begin{equation}
155 < w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j) = (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^0,
155 > w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j) = (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^\circ,
156   \end{equation}
157   It should be noted that $w$ is proportional to the sum of the $Y_3^2$
158   and $Y_3^{-2}$ spherical harmonics (a linear combination which
# Line 208 | Line 209 | cubic switching function at a cutoff radius.  Under th
209  
210   Long-range dipole-dipole interactions were accounted for in this study
211   by using either the reaction field method or by resorting to a simple
212 < cubic switching function at a cutoff radius.  Under the first method,
213 < the magnitude of the reaction field acting on dipole $i$ is
212 > cubic switching function at a cutoff radius.  The reaction field
213 > method was actually first used in Monte Carlo simulations of liquid
214 > water.\cite{Barker73} Under this method, the magnitude of the reaction
215 > field acting on dipole $i$ is
216   \begin{equation}
217   \mathcal{E}_{i} = \frac{2(\varepsilon_{s} - 1)}{2\varepsilon_{s} + 1}
218   \frac{1}{r_{c}^{3}} \sum_{j\in{\mathcal{R}}} {\bf \mu}_{j} f(r_{ij})\  ,
# Line 591 | Line 594 | The parameters available for tuning include the $\sigm
594   important properties. In this case, it would be ideal to correct the
595   densities while maintaining the accurate transport behavior.
596  
597 < The parameters available for tuning include the $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$
598 < Lennard-Jones parameters, the dipole strength ($\mu$), and the sticky
599 < attractive and dipole repulsive terms with their respective
600 < cutoffs. To alter the attractive and repulsive terms of the sticky
601 < potential independently, it is necessary to separate the terms as
602 < follows:
603 < \begin{equation}
601 < u_{ij}^{sp}
602 < ({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j) =
603 < \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)] + \frac{\nu_0^\prime}{2} [s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)],
604 < \end{equation}
605 < where $\nu_0$ scales the strength of the tetrahedral attraction and
606 < $\nu_0^\prime$ scales the dipole repulsion term independently. The
607 < separation was performed for purposes of the reparameterization, but
608 < the final parameters were adjusted so that it is not necessary to
609 < separate the terms when implementing the adjusted water
610 < potentials. The results of the reparameterizations are shown in table
611 < \ref{params}. Note that the tetrahedral attractive and dipolar
612 < repulsive terms do not share the same lower cutoff ($r_l$) in the
613 < newly parameterized potentials.  We are calling these
614 < reparameterizations the Soft Sticky Dipole / Reaction Field
597 > The parameters available for tuning include the $\sigma$ and
598 > $\epsilon$ Lennard-Jones parameters, the dipole strength ($\mu$), the
599 > strength of the sticky potential ($\nu_0$), and the sticky attractive
600 > and dipole repulsive cubic switching function cutoffs ($r_l$, $r_u$
601 > and $r_l^\prime$, $r_u^\prime$ respectively). The results of the
602 > reparameterizations are shown in table \ref{params}. We are calling
603 > these reparameterizations the Soft Sticky Dipole / Reaction Field
604   (SSD/RF - for use with a reaction field) and Soft Sticky Dipole
605 < Enhanced (SSD/E - an attempt to improve the liquid structure in
605 > Extended (SSD/E - an attempt to improve the liquid structure in
606   simulations without a long-range correction).
607  
608   \begin{table}
# Line 628 | Line 617 | simulations without a long-range correction).
617   \ \ \ $\epsilon$ (kcal/mol) & 0.152 & 0.152 & 0.152 & 0.152\\
618   \ \ \ $\mu$ (D) & 2.35 & 2.35 & 2.42 & 2.48\\
619   \ \ \ $\nu_0$ (kcal/mol) & 3.7284 & 3.6613 & 3.90 & 3.90\\
620 + \ \ \ $\omega^\circ$ & 0.07715 & 0.07715 & 0.07715 & 0.07715\\
621   \ \ \ $r_l$ (\AA) & 2.75 & 2.75 & 2.40 & 2.40\\
622   \ \ \ $r_u$ (\AA) & 3.35 & 3.35 & 3.80 & 3.80\\
633 \ \ \ $\nu_0^\prime$ (kcal/mol) & 3.7284 & 3.6613 & 3.90 & 3.90\\
623   \ \ \ $r_l^\prime$ (\AA) & 2.75 & 2.75 & 2.75 & 2.75\\
624   \ \ \ $r_u^\prime$ (\AA) & 4.00 & 4.00 & 3.35 & 3.35\\
625   \end{tabular}
# Line 806 | Line 795 | K, shown by SSD and SSD1 respectively.
795   \begin{center}
796   \epsfxsize=6in
797   \epsfbox{ssdeDiffuse.epsi}
798 < \caption{Plots of the diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and SSD1,
799 < both without a reaction field, along with experimental results
800 < [Refs. \citen{Gillen72} and \citen{Mills73}]. The NVE calculations were
801 < performed at the average densities observed in the 1 atm NPT
802 < simulations for the respective models. SSD/E is slightly more fluid
803 < than experiment at all of the temperatures, but it is closer than SSD1
804 < without a long-range correction.}
798 > \caption{The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and SSD1,
799 > both without a reaction field, along with experimental results
800 > [Refs. \citen{Gillen72} and \citen{Holz00}]. The NVE calculations
801 > were performed at the average densities observed in the 1 atm NPT
802 > simulations for the respective models. SSD/E is slightly more mobile
803 > than experiment at all of the temperatures, but it is closer to
804 > experiment at biologically relavent temperatures than SSD1 without a
805 > long-range correction.}
806   \label{ssdediffuse}
807   \end{center}
808   \end{figure}
# Line 823 | Line 813 | without an active reaction field, both at the densitie
813   the densities, it is important that the excellent diffusive behavior
814   of SSD be maintained or improved. Figure \ref{ssdediffuse} compares
815   the temperature dependence of the diffusion constant of SSD/E to SSD1
816 < without an active reaction field, both at the densities calculated at
817 < 1 atm and at the experimentally calculated densities for super-cooled
818 < and liquid water. The diffusion constant for SSD/E is consistently
819 < higher than experiment, while SSD1 remains lower than experiment until
820 < relatively high temperatures (greater than 330 K). Both models follow
821 < the shape of the experimental curve well below 300 K but tend to
822 < diffuse too rapidly at higher temperatures, something that is
823 < especially apparent with SSD1.  This increasing diffusion relative to
824 < the experimental values is caused by the rapidly decreasing system
825 < density with increasing temperature.  The densities of SSD1 decay more
826 < rapidly with temperature than do those of SSD/E, leading to more
827 < visible deviation from the experimental diffusion trend.  Thus, the
828 < changes made to improve the liquid structure may have had an adverse
829 < affect on the density maximum, but they improve the transport behavior
830 < of SSD/E relative to SSD1.
816 > without an active reaction field at the densities calculated from the
817 > NPT simulations at 1 atm. The diffusion constant for SSD/E is
818 > consistently higher than experiment, while SSD1 remains lower than
819 > experiment until relatively high temperatures (around 360 K). Both
820 > models follow the shape of the experimental curve well below 300 K but
821 > tend to diffuse too rapidly at higher temperatures, as seen in SSD1's
822 > crossing above 360 K.  This increasing diffusion relative to the
823 > experimental values is caused by the rapidly decreasing system density
824 > with increasing temperature.  Both SSD1 and SSD/E show this deviation
825 > in diffusive behavior, but this trend has different implications on
826 > the diffusive behavior of the models.  While SSD1 shows more
827 > experimentally accurate diffusive behavior in the high temperature
828 > regimes, SSD/E shows more accurate behavior in the supercooled and
829 > biologically relavent temperature ranges.  Thus, the changes made to
830 > improve the liquid structure may have had an adverse affect on the
831 > density maximum, but they improve the transport behavior of SSD/E
832 > relative to SSD1 under the most commonly simulated conditions.
833  
834   \begin{figure}
835   \begin{center}
836   \epsfxsize=6in
837   \epsfbox{ssdrfDiffuse.epsi}
838 < \caption{Plots of the diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and SSD1,
838 > \caption{The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and SSD1,
839   both with an active reaction field, along with experimental results
840 < [Refs. \citen{Gillen72} and \citen{Mills73}]. The NVE calculations
840 > [Refs. \citen{Gillen72} and \citen{Holz00}]. The NVE calculations
841   were performed at the average densities observed in the 1 atm NPT
842   simulations for both of the models. Note how accurately SSD/RF
843   simulates the diffusion of water throughout this temperature
844   range. The more rapidly increasing diffusion constants at high
845 < temperatures for both models is attributed to the significantly lower
846 < densities than observed in experiment.}
845 > temperatures for both models is attributed to lower calculated
846 > densities than those observed in experiment.}
847   \label{ssdrfdiffuse}
848   \end{center}
849   \end{figure}
# Line 859 | Line 851 | throughout the temperature range shown and with only a
851   In figure \ref{ssdrfdiffuse}, the diffusion constants for SSD/RF are
852   compared to SSD1 with an active reaction field. Note that SSD/RF
853   tracks the experimental results quantitatively, identical within error
854 < throughout the temperature range shown and with only a slight
855 < increasing trend at higher temperatures. SSD1 tends to diffuse more
856 < slowly at low temperatures and deviates to diffuse too rapidly at
854 > throughout most of the temperature range shown and exhibiting only a
855 > slight increasing trend at higher temperatures. SSD1 tends to diffuse
856 > more slowly at low temperatures and deviates to diffuse too rapidly at
857   temperatures greater than 330 K.  As stated above, this deviation away
858   from the ideal trend is due to a rapid decrease in density at higher
859   temperatures. SSD/RF does not suffer from this problem as much as SSD1
# Line 869 | Line 861 | reparameterization when using an altered long-range co
861   values. These results again emphasize the importance of careful
862   reparameterization when using an altered long-range correction.
863  
864 + \begin{table}
865 + \begin{center}
866 + \caption{Calculated and experimental properties of the single point waters and liquid water at 298 K and 1 atm. (a) Ref. [\citen{Mills73}]. (b) Calculated by integrating the data in ref. \citen{Head-Gordon00_1}. (c) Calculated by integrating the data in ref. \citen{Soper86}. (d) Ref. [\citen{Eisenberg69}]. (e) Calculated for 298 K from data in ref. \citen{Krynicki66}.}
867 + \begin{tabular}{ l  c  c  c  c  c }
868 + \hline \\[-3mm]
869 + \ \ \ \ \ \  & \ \ \ SSD1 \ \ \ & \ SSD/E \ \ \ & \ SSD1 (RF) \ \
870 + \ & \ SSD/RF \ \ \ & \ Expt. \\
871 + \hline \\[-3mm]
872 + \ \ \ $\rho$ (g/cm$^3$) & 0.999 $\pm$0.001 & 0.996 $\pm$0.001 & 0.972 $\pm$0.002 & 0.997 $\pm$0.001 & 0.997 \\
873 + \ \ \ $C_p$ (cal/mol K) & 28.80 $\pm$0.11 & 25.45 $\pm$0.09 & 28.28 $\pm$0.06 & 23.83 $\pm$0.16 & 17.98 \\
874 + \ \ \ $D$ ($10^{-5}$ cm$^2$/s) & 1.78 $\pm$0.07 & 2.51 $\pm$0.18 & 2.00 $\pm$0.17 & 2.32 $\pm$0.06 & 2.299$^\text{a}$ \\
875 + \ \ \ Coordination Number & 3.9 & 4.3 & 3.8 & 4.4 & 4.7$^\text{b}$ \\
876 + \ \ \ H-bonds per particle & 3.7 & 3.6 & 3.7 & 3.7 & 3.4$^\text{c}$ \\
877 + \ \ \ $\tau_1^\mu$ (ps) & 10.9 $\pm$0.6 & 7.3 $\pm$0.4 & 7.5 $\pm$0.7 & 7.2 $\pm$0.4 & 4.76$^\text{d}$ \\
878 + \ \ \ $\tau_2^\mu$ (ps) & 4.7 $\pm$0.4 & 3.1 $\pm$0.2 & 3.5 $\pm$0.3 & 3.2 $\pm$0.2 & 2.3$^\text{e}$ \\
879 + \end{tabular}
880 + \label{liquidproperties}
881 + \end{center}
882 + \end{table}
883 +
884 + Table \ref{liquidproperties} gives a synopsis of the liquid state
885 + properties of the water models compared in this study along with the
886 + experimental values for liquid water at ambient conditions. The
887 + coordination number and hydrogen bonds per particle were calculated by
888 + integrating the following relation:
889 + \begin{equation}
890 + 4\pi\rho\int_{0}^{a}r^2\text{g}(r)dr,
891 + \end{equation}
892 + where $\rho$ is the number density of pair interactions, $a$ is the
893 + radial location of the minima following the first solvation shell
894 + peak, and g$(r)$ is either g$_\text{OO}(r)$ or g$_\text{OH}(r)$ for
895 + calculation of the coordination number or hydrogen bonds per particle
896 + respectively. The number of hydrogen bonds stays relatively constant
897 + across all of the models, but the coordination numbers of SSD/E and
898 + SSD/RF show an improvement over SSD1. This improvement is primarily
899 + due to the widening of the first solvation shell peak, allowing the
900 + first minima to push outward. Comparing the coordination number with
901 + the number of hydrogen bonds can lead to more insight into the
902 + structural character of the liquid.  Because of the near identical
903 + values for SSD1, it appears to be a little too exclusive, in that all
904 + molecules in the first solvation shell are involved in forming ideal
905 + hydrogen bonds.  The differing numbers for the newly parameterized
906 + models indicate the allowance of more fluid configurations in addition
907 + to the formation of an acceptable number of ideal hydrogen bonds.
908 +
909 + The time constants for the self orientational autocorrelation function
910 + are also displayed in Table \ref{liquidproperties}. The dipolar
911 + orientational time correlation function ($\Gamma_{l}$) is described
912 + by:
913 + \begin{equation}
914 + \Gamma_{l}(t) = \langle P_l[\mathbf{u}_j(0)\cdot\mathbf{u}_j(t)]\rangle,
915 + \end{equation}
916 + where $P_l$ is a Legendre polynomial of order $l$ and $\mathbf{u}_j$
917 + is the unit vector of the particle dipole.\cite{Rahman71} From these
918 + correlation functions, the orientational relaxation time of the dipole
919 + vector can be calculated from an exponential fit in the long-time
920 + regime ($t > \tau_l^\mu$).\cite{Rothschild84} Calculation of these
921 + time constants were averaged from five detailed NVE simulations
922 + performed at the STP density for each of the respective models. Again,
923 + SSD/E and SSD/RF show improved behavior over SSD1 both with and
924 + without an active reaction field. Numbers published from the original
925 + SSD dynamics studies appear closer to the experimental values, and we
926 + attribute this discrepancy to the implimentation of an Ewald sum
927 + versus a reaction field.
928 +
929   \subsection{Additional Observations}
930  
931   \begin{figure}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines