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 759 by chrisfen, Wed Sep 10 22:42:57 2003 UTC vs.
Revision 856 by chrisfen, Thu Nov 6 23:00:00 2003 UTC

# Line 36 | Line 36 | for the SSD water model, both with and without the use
36   \begin{abstract}
37   NVE and NPT molecular dynamics simulations were performed in order to
38   investigate the density maximum and temperature dependent transport
39 < for the SSD water model, both with and without the use of reaction
40 < field. The constant pressure simulations of the melting of both $I_h$
41 < and $I_c$ ice showed a density maximum near 260 K. In most cases, the
42 < calculated densities were significantly lower than the densities
43 < calculated in simulations of other water models. Analysis of particle
44 < diffusion showed SSD to capture the transport properties of
39 > for SSD and related water models, both with and without the use of
40 > reaction field. The constant pressure simulations of the melting of
41 > both $I_h$ and $I_c$ ice showed a density maximum near 260 K. In most
42 > cases, the calculated densities were significantly lower than the
43 > densities calculated in simulations of other water models. Analysis of
44 > particle diffusion showed SSD to capture the transport properties of
45   experimental very well in both the normal and super-cooled liquid
46   regimes. In order to correct the density behavior, SSD was
47   reparameterized for use both with and without a long-range interaction
# Line 146 | Line 146 | water.\cite{Ichiye96} In the original molecular dynami
146   simulations using this model, Ichiye \emph{et al.} reported a
147   calculation speed up of up to an order of magnitude over other
148   comparable models while maintaining the structural behavior of
149 < water.\cite{Ichiye96} In the original molecular dynamics studies of
150 < SSD, it was shown that it actually improves upon the prediction of
151 < water's dynamical properties 3 and 4-point models.\cite{Ichiye99} This
149 > water.\cite{Ichiye96} In the original molecular dynamics studies, it
150 > was shown that SSD improves on the prediction of many of water's
151 > dynamical properties over TIP3P and SPC/E.\cite{Ichiye99} This
152   attractive combination of speed and accurate depiction of solvent
153   properties makes SSD a model of interest for the simulation of large
154   scale biological systems, such as membrane phase behavior, a specific
# Line 205 | Line 205 | SSD more compatible with a reaction field.
205   to the use of reaction field, simulations were also performed without
206   a surrounding dielectric and suggestions are proposed on how to make
207   SSD more compatible with a reaction field.
208 <
208 >
209   Simulations were performed in both the isobaric-isothermal and
210   microcanonical ensembles. The constant pressure simulations were
211   implemented using an integral thermostat and barostat as outlined by
212 < Hoover.\cite{Hoover85,Hoover86} For the constant pressure
213 < simulations, the \emph{Q} parameter for the was set to 5.0 amu
214 < \(\cdot\)\AA\(^{2}\), and the relaxation time (\(\tau\))\ was set at
215 < 100 ps.
212 > Hoover.\cite{Hoover85,Hoover86} All particles were treated as
213 > non-linear rigid bodies. Vibrational constraints are not necessary in
214 > simulations of SSD, because there are no explicit hydrogen atoms, and
215 > thus no molecular vibrational modes need to be considered.
216  
217   Integration of the equations of motion was carried out using the
218   symplectic splitting method proposed by Dullweber \emph{et
# Line 220 | Line 220 | requirement that is actually quite sensitive to errors
220   deals with poor energy conservation of rigid body systems using
221   quaternions. While quaternions work well for orientational motion in
222   alternate ensembles, the microcanonical ensemble has a constant energy
223 < requirement that is actually quite sensitive to errors in the
224 < equations of motion. The original implementation of this code utilized
225 < quaternions for rotational motion propagation; however, a detailed
226 < investigation showed that they resulted in a steady drift in the total
227 < energy, something that has been observed by others.\cite{Laird97}
223 > requirement that is quite sensitive to errors in the equations of
224 > motion. The original implementation of this code utilized quaternions
225 > for rotational motion propagation; however, a detailed investigation
226 > showed that they resulted in a steady drift in the total energy,
227 > something that has been observed by others.\cite{Laird97}
228  
229   The key difference in the integration method proposed by Dullweber
230   \emph{et al.} is that the entire rotation matrix is propagated from
# Line 244 | Line 244 | simpler arithmetic quaternion propagation. On average,
244   method, the orientational propagation involves a sequence of matrix
245   evaluations to update the rotation matrix.\cite{Dullweber1997} These
246   matrix rotations end up being more costly computationally than the
247 < simpler arithmetic quaternion propagation. On average, a 1000 SSD
248 < particle simulation shows a 7\% increase in computation time using the
249 < symplectic step method in place of quaternions. This cost is more than
250 < justified when comparing the energy conservation of the two methods as
251 < illustrated in figure \ref{timestep}.
247 > simpler arithmetic quaternion propagation. With the same time step, a
248 > 1000 SSD particle simulation shows an average 7\% increase in
249 > computation time using the symplectic step method in place of
250 > quaternions. This cost is more than justified when comparing the
251 > energy conservation of the two methods as illustrated in figure
252 > \ref{timestep}.
253  
254   \begin{figure}
255   \includegraphics[width=61mm, angle=-90]{timeStep.epsi}
# Line 307 | Line 308 | constant pressure and temperature dynamics. This invol
308   \section{Results and discussion}
309  
310   Melting studies were performed on the randomized ice crystals using
311 < constant pressure and temperature dynamics. This involved an initial
312 < randomization of velocities about the starting temperature of 25 K for
313 < varying amounts of time. The systems were all equilibrated for 100 ps
314 < prior to a 200 ps data collection run at each temperature setting,
315 < ranging from 25 to 400 K, with a maximum degree increment of 25 K. For
316 < regions of interest along this stepwise progression, the temperature
317 < increment was decreased from 25 K to 10 and then 5 K. The above
318 < equilibration and production times were sufficient in that the system
319 < volume fluctuations dampened out in all but the very cold simulations
320 < (below 225 K). In order to further improve statistics, five separate
321 < simulation progressions were performed, and the averaged results from
322 < the $I_h$ melting simulations are shown in figure \ref{dense1}.
323 <
324 < \begin{figure}
324 < \includegraphics[width=65mm, angle=-90]{1hdense.epsi}
325 < \caption{Average density of SSD water at increasing temperatures
326 < starting from ice $I_h$ lattice.}
327 < \label{dense1}
328 < \end{figure}
311 > constant pressure and temperature dynamics. By performing melting
312 > simulations, the melting transition can be determined by monitoring
313 > the heat capacity, in addition to determining the density maximum,
314 > provided that the density maximum occurs in the liquid and not the
315 > supercooled regimes. An ensemble average from five separate melting
316 > simulations was acquired, each starting from different ice crystals
317 > generated as described previously. All simulations were equilibrated
318 > for 100 ps prior to a 200 ps data collection run at each temperature
319 > setting, ranging from 25 to 400 K, with a maximum degree increment of
320 > 25 K. For regions of interest along this stepwise progression, the
321 > temperature increment was decreased from 25 K to 10 and then 5 K. The
322 > above equilibration and production times were sufficient in that the
323 > system volume fluctuations dampened out in all but the very cold
324 > simulations (below 225 K).
325  
326   \subsection{Density Behavior}
327   In the initial average density versus temperature plot, the density
328 < maximum clearly appears between 255 and 265 K. The calculated
329 < densities within this range were nearly indistinguishable, as can be
330 < seen in the zoom of this region of interest, shown in figure
328 > maximum appears between 255 and 265 K. The calculated densities within
329 > this range were nearly indistinguishable, as can be seen in the zoom
330 > of this region of interest, shown in figure
331   \ref{dense1}. The greater certainty of the average value at 260 K makes
332   a good argument for the actual density maximum residing at this
333   midpoint value. Figure \ref{dense1} was constructed using ice $I_h$
# Line 347 | Line 343 | TIP3P\cite{Jorgensen98b}, SPC/E\cite{Clancy94}, SSD wi
343   \begin{figure}
344   \includegraphics[width=65mm,angle=-90]{dense2.eps}
345   \caption{Density versus temperature for TIP4P\cite{Jorgensen98b},
346 < TIP3P\cite{Jorgensen98b}, SPC/E\cite{Clancy94}, SSD without Reaction
347 < Field, SSD, and Experiment\cite{CRC80}. }
346 > TIP3P\cite{Jorgensen98b}, SPC/E\cite{Clancy94}, SSD without Reaction
347 > Field, SSD, and Experiment\cite{CRC80}. The arrows indicate the
348 > change in densities observed when turning off the reaction field. The
349 > the lower than expected densities for the SSD model were what
350 > prompted the original reparameterization.\cite{Ichiye03}}
351   \label{dense2}
352   \end{figure}
353  
# Line 576 | Line 575 | soft sticky dipole reaction field (SSD/RF).
575  
576   \begin{table}
577   \caption{Parameters for the original and adjusted models}
578 < \begin{tabular}{ l  c  c  c }
578 > \begin{tabular}{ l  c  c  c  c }
579   \hline \\[-3mm]
580 < \ Parameters & \ \ \  SSD$^\dagger$\ \ \ \  & \ SSD/E\ \  & \ SSD/RF\ \ \\
580 > \ \ \ Parameters\ \ \  & \ \ \ SSD$^\dagger$ \ \ \ & \ SSD1$^\ddagger$\ \  & \ SSD/E\ \  & \ SSD/RF \\
581   \hline \\[-3mm]
582 < \ \ \ $\sigma$ (\AA)  & 3.051 & 3.035 & 3.019\\
583 < \ \ \ $\epsilon$ (kcal/mol)\ \ & 0.152 & 0.152 & 0.152\\
584 < \ \ \ $\mu$ (D) & 2.35 & 2.418 & 2.480\\
585 < \ \ \ $\nu_0$ (kcal/mol)\ \ & 3.7284 & 3.90 & 3.90\\
586 < \ \ \ $r_l$ (\AA) & 2.75 & 2.40 & 2.40\\
587 < \ \ \ $r_u$ (\AA) & 3.35 & 3.80 & 3.80\\
588 < \ \ \ $\nu_0^\prime$ (kcal/mol)\ \ & 3.7284 & 3.90 & 3.90\\
589 < \ \ \ $r_l^\prime$ (\AA) & 2.75 & 2.75 & 2.75\\
590 < \ \ \ $r_u^\prime$ (\AA) & 4.00 & 3.35 & 3.35\\
582 > \ \ \ $\sigma$ (\AA)  & 3.051 & 3.016 & 3.035 & 3.019\\
583 > \ \ \ $\epsilon$ (kcal/mol) & 0.152 & 0.152 & 0.152 & 0.152\\
584 > \ \ \ $\mu$ (D) & 2.35 & 2.35 & 2.42 & 2.48\\
585 > \ \ \ $\nu_0$ (kcal/mol) & 3.7284 & 3.6613 & 3.90 & 3.90\\
586 > \ \ \ $r_l$ (\AA) & 2.75 & 2.75 & 2.40 & 2.40\\
587 > \ \ \ $r_u$ (\AA) & 3.35 & 3.35 & 3.80 & 3.80\\
588 > \ \ \ $\nu_0^\prime$ (kcal/mol) & 3.7284 & 3.6613 & 3.90 & 3.90\\
589 > \ \ \ $r_l^\prime$ (\AA) & 2.75 & 2.75 & 2.75 & 2.75\\
590 > \ \ \ $r_u^\prime$ (\AA) & 4.00 & 4.00 & 3.35 & 3.35\\
591   \\[-2mm]$^\dagger$ ref. \onlinecite{Ichiye96}
592 + \\$^\ddagger$ ref. \onlinecite{Ichiye03}
593   \end{tabular}
594   \label{params}
595   \end{table}
596  
597   \begin{figure}
598 < \includegraphics[width=85mm]{gofrCompare.epsi}
598 > \includegraphics[width=85mm]{GofRCompare.epsi}
599   \caption{Plots comparing experiment\cite{Head-Gordon00_1} with SSD/E
600 < and SSD without reaction field (top), as well as SSD/RF and SSD with
600 > and SSD1 without reaction field (top), as well as SSD/RF and SSD1 with
601   reaction field turned on (bottom). The insets show the respective
602   first peaks in detail. Solid Line - experiment, dashed line - SSD/E
603 < and SSD/RF, and dotted line - SSD (with and without reaction field).}
603 > and SSD/RF, and dotted line - SSD1 (with and without reaction field).}
604   \label{grcompare}
605   \end{figure}
606  
607   \begin{figure}
608   \includegraphics[width=85mm]{dualsticky.ps}
609 < \caption{Isosurfaces of the sticky potential for SSD (left) and SSD/E \&
609 > \caption{Isosurfaces of the sticky potential for SSD1 (left) and SSD/E \&
610   SSD/RF (right). Light areas correspond to the tetrahedral attractive
611   part, and the darker areas correspond to the dipolar repulsive part.}
612   \label{isosurface}
# Line 683 | Line 683 | stated earlier in this paper.
683   stated earlier in this paper.
684  
685   \begin{figure}
686 < \includegraphics[width=85mm]{ssdecompare.epsi}
686 > \includegraphics[width=62mm, angle=-90]{ssdeDense.epsi}
687   \caption{Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/E to SSD without a
688 < reaction field, TIP4P\cite{Jorgensen98b}, TIP3P\cite{Jorgensen98b},
689 < SPC/E\cite{Clancy94}, and Experiment\cite{CRC80}. The upper plot
690 < includes error bars, and the calculated results from the other
691 < references were removed for clarity.}
688 > reaction field, TIP3P\cite{Jorgensen98b}, TIP5P\cite{Jorgensen00},
689 > SPC/E\cite{Clancy94}, and Experiment\cite{CRC80}. The window shows a
690 > expansion around 300 K with error bars included to clarify this region
691 > of interest. Note that both SSD1 and SSD/E show good agreement with
692 > experiment when the long-range correction is neglected.}
693   \label{ssdedense}
694   \end{figure}
695  
# Line 714 | Line 715 | justify the modifications taken.
715   justify the modifications taken.
716  
717   \begin{figure}
718 < \includegraphics[width=85mm]{ssdrfcompare.epsi}
718 > \includegraphics[width=62mm, angle=-90]{ssdrfDense.epsi}
719   \caption{Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/RF to SSD with a
720 < reaction field, TIP4P\cite{Jorgensen98b}, TIP3P\cite{Jorgensen98b},
721 < SPC/E\cite{Clancy94}, and Experiment\cite{CRC80}. The upper plot
722 < includes error bars, and the calculated results from the other
723 < references were removed for clarity.}
720 > reaction field, TIP3P\cite{Jorgensen98b}, TIP5P\cite{Jorgensen00},
721 > SPC/E\cite{Clancy94}, and Experiment\cite{CRC80}. The inset shows the
722 > necessity of reparameterization when utilizing a reaction field
723 > long-ranged correction - SSD/RF provides significantly more accurate
724 > densities than SSD1 when performing room temperature simulations.}
725   \label{ssdrfdense}
726   \end{figure}
727  
# Line 757 | Line 759 | lower densities with increasing temperature as rapidly
759   lower densities with increasing temperature as rapidly.
760  
761   \begin{figure}
762 < \includegraphics[width=85mm]{ssdediffuse.epsi}
763 < \caption{Plots of the diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and SSD,
764 < both without a reaction field along with experimental results from
765 < Gillen \emph{et al.}\cite{Gillen72} and Mills\cite{Mills73}. The
766 < upper plot is at densities calculated from the NPT simulations at a
767 < pressure of 1 atm, while the lower plot is at the experimentally
768 < calculated densities.}
769 < \label{ssdediffuse}
762 > \includegraphics[width=65mm, angle=-90]{ssdrfDiffuse.epsi}
763 > \caption{Plots of the diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and SSD1,
764 > both with an active reaction field, along with experimental results
765 > from Gillen \emph{et al.}\cite{Gillen72} and Mills\cite{Mills73}. The
766 > NVE calculations were performed at the average densities observed in
767 > the 1 atm NPT simulations for both of the models. Note how accurately
768 > SSD/RF simulates the diffusion of water throughout this temperature
769 > range. The more rapidly increasing diffusion constants at high
770 > temperatures for both models is attributed to the significantly lower
771 > densities than observed in experiment.}
772 > \label{ssdrfdiffuse}
773   \end{figure}
774  
775   \begin{figure}
776 < \includegraphics[width=85mm]{ssdrfdiffuse.epsi}
777 < \caption{Plots of the diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and SSD,
778 < both with an active reaction field along with experimental results
776 > \includegraphics[width=65mm, angle=-90]{ssdeDiffuse.epsi}
777 > \caption{Plots of the diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and SSD1,
778 > both without a reaction field, along with experimental results are
779   from Gillen \emph{et al.}\cite{Gillen72} and Mills\cite{Mills73}. The
780 < upper plot is at densities calculated from the NPT simulations at a
781 < pressure of 1 atm, while the lower plot is at the experimentally
782 < calculated densities.}
783 < \label{ssdrfdiffuse}
780 > NVE calculations were performed at the average densities observed in
781 > the 1 atm NPT simulations for the respective models. SSD/E is
782 > slightly more fluid than experiment at all of the temperatures, but
783 > it is closer than SSD1 without a long-range correction.}
784 > \label{ssdediffuse}
785   \end{figure}
786  
787   In figure \ref{ssdrfdiffuse}, the diffusion constants for SSD/RF are
# Line 902 | Line 908 | The authors would like to thank the National Science F
908   simulations of biochemical systems.
909  
910   \section{Acknowledgments}
911 < The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation for
912 < funding under grant CHE-0134881. Computation time was provided by the
913 < Notre Dame Bunch-of-Boxes (B.o.B) computer cluster under NSF grant DMR
914 < 00 79647.
911 > Support for this project was provided by the National Science
912 > Foundation under grant CHE-0134881. Computation time was provided by
913 > the Notre Dame Bunch-of-Boxes (B.o.B) computer cluster under NSF grant
914 > DMR 00 79647.
915  
916   \bibliographystyle{jcp}
917  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines