1 |
|
%\documentclass[prb,aps,times,twocolumn,tabularx]{revtex4} |
2 |
< |
\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4} |
3 |
< |
%\documentclass[11pt]{article} |
4 |
< |
%\usepackage{endfloat} |
2 |
> |
%\documentclass[preprint,aps,endfloat]{revtex4} |
3 |
> |
\documentclass[11pt]{article} |
4 |
> |
\usepackage{endfloat} |
5 |
|
\usepackage{amsmath} |
6 |
|
\usepackage{epsf} |
7 |
|
\usepackage{berkeley} |
8 |
|
\usepackage{setspace} |
9 |
|
\usepackage{tabularx} |
10 |
|
\usepackage{graphicx} |
11 |
< |
%\usepackage[ref]{overcite} |
12 |
< |
%\usepackage{curves} |
13 |
< |
%\pagestyle{plain} |
14 |
< |
%\pagenumbering{arabic} |
15 |
< |
%\oddsidemargin 0.0cm \evensidemargin 0.0cm |
16 |
< |
%\topmargin -21pt \headsep 10pt |
17 |
< |
%\textheight 9.0in \textwidth 6.5in |
18 |
< |
%\brokenpenalty=10000 |
19 |
< |
%\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2} |
11 |
> |
\usepackage[ref]{overcite} |
12 |
> |
\pagestyle{plain} |
13 |
> |
\pagenumbering{arabic} |
14 |
> |
\oddsidemargin 0.0cm \evensidemargin 0.0cm |
15 |
> |
\topmargin -21pt \headsep 10pt |
16 |
> |
\textheight 9.0in \textwidth 6.5in |
17 |
> |
\brokenpenalty=10000 |
18 |
> |
|
19 |
|
%\renewcommand\citemid{\ } % no comma in optional reference note |
21 |
– |
\newcounter{captions} |
22 |
– |
\newcounter{figs} |
20 |
|
|
21 |
|
\begin{document} |
22 |
|
|
23 |
|
\title{On the structural and transport properties of the soft sticky |
24 |
|
dipole (SSD) and related single point water models} |
25 |
|
|
26 |
< |
\author{Christopher J. Fennell and J. Daniel Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail: gezelter@nd.edu}} |
27 |
< |
|
28 |
< |
\affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry\\ University of Notre Dame\\ |
26 |
> |
\author{Christopher J. Fennell and J. Daniel |
27 |
> |
Gezelter\footnote{Corresponding author. \ Electronic mail: |
28 |
> |
gezelter@nd.edu} \\ Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry\\ University of Notre Dame\\ |
29 |
|
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556} |
30 |
|
|
31 |
|
\date{\today} |
32 |
|
|
33 |
+ |
\maketitle |
34 |
+ |
\doublespacing |
35 |
|
|
36 |
|
\begin{abstract} |
37 |
|
The density maximum and temperature dependence of the self-diffusion |
59 |
|
family. |
60 |
|
\end{abstract} |
61 |
|
|
63 |
– |
\maketitle |
64 |
– |
|
62 |
|
\newpage |
63 |
|
|
64 |
|
%\narrowtext |
68 |
– |
|
65 |
|
|
66 |
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% |
67 |
|
% BODY OF TEXT |
283 |
|
time steps is illustrated in figure |
284 |
|
\ref{timestep}. |
285 |
|
|
286 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
287 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
288 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
289 |
< |
%\epsfbox{timeStep.epsi} |
290 |
< |
%\caption{Energy conservation using both quaternion-based integration and |
291 |
< |
%the {\sc dlm} method with increasing time step. The larger time step |
292 |
< |
%plots are shifted from the true energy baseline (that of $\Delta t$ = |
293 |
< |
%0.1~fs) for clarity.} |
294 |
< |
%\label{timestep} |
295 |
< |
%\end{center} |
296 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
286 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
287 |
> |
\begin{center} |
288 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
289 |
> |
\epsfbox{timeStep.epsi} |
290 |
> |
\caption{Energy conservation using both quaternion-based integration and the |
291 |
> |
{\sc dlm} method with increasing time step. The larger time step plots |
292 |
> |
are shifted from the true energy baseline (that of $\Delta t$ = |
293 |
> |
0.1~fs) for clarity.} |
294 |
> |
\label{timestep} |
295 |
> |
\end{center} |
296 |
> |
\end{figure} |
297 |
|
|
298 |
|
In figure \ref{timestep}, the resulting energy drift at various time |
299 |
|
steps for both the {\sc dlm} and quaternion integration schemes is |
368 |
|
configurations showed similar results, with a liquid-phase density |
369 |
|
maximum in this same region (between 255 and 260~K). |
370 |
|
|
371 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
372 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
373 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
374 |
< |
%\epsfbox{denseSSDnew.eps} |
375 |
< |
%\caption{Density versus temperature for TIP4P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
376 |
< |
% TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], SSD |
377 |
< |
% without Reaction Field, SSD, and experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The |
378 |
< |
% arrows indicate the change in densities observed when turning off the |
379 |
< |
% reaction field. The the lower than expected densities for the SSD |
380 |
< |
% model were what prompted the original reparameterization of SSD1 |
381 |
< |
% [Ref. \onlinecite{Ichiye03}].} |
382 |
< |
%\label{dense1} |
383 |
< |
%\end{center} |
384 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
371 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
372 |
> |
\begin{center} |
373 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
374 |
> |
\epsfbox{denseSSDnew.eps} |
375 |
> |
\caption{ Density versus temperature for TIP4P [Ref. \citen{Jorgensen98b}], |
376 |
> |
TIP3P [Ref. \citen{Jorgensen98b}], SPC/E [Ref. \citen{Clancy94}], SSD |
377 |
> |
without Reaction Field, SSD, and experiment [Ref. \citen{CRC80}]. The |
378 |
> |
arrows indicate the change in densities observed when turning off the |
379 |
> |
reaction field. The the lower than expected densities for the SSD |
380 |
> |
model were what prompted the original reparameterization of SSD1 |
381 |
> |
[Ref. \citen{Ichiye03}].} |
382 |
> |
\label{dense1} |
383 |
> |
\end{center} |
384 |
> |
\end{figure} |
385 |
|
|
386 |
|
The density maximum for SSD compares quite favorably to other |
387 |
|
simple water models. Figure \ref{dense1} also shows calculated |
452 |
|
\ref{diffuse}, alongside experimental, SPC/E, and TIP5P |
453 |
|
results.\cite{Gillen72,Holz00,Clancy94,Jorgensen01} |
454 |
|
|
455 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
456 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
457 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
458 |
< |
%\epsfbox{betterDiffuse.epsi} |
459 |
< |
%\caption{Average self-diffusion constant as a function of temperature for |
460 |
< |
%SSD, SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], and TIP5P |
461 |
< |
%[Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen01}] compared with experimental data |
462 |
< |
%[Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. Of the three water models |
463 |
< |
%shown, SSD has the least deviation from the experimental values. The |
464 |
< |
%rapidly increasing diffusion constants for TIP5P and SSD correspond to |
465 |
< |
%significant decreases in density at the higher temperatures.} |
466 |
< |
%\label{diffuse} |
467 |
< |
%\end{center} |
468 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
455 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
456 |
> |
\begin{center} |
457 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
458 |
> |
\epsfbox{betterDiffuse.epsi} |
459 |
> |
\caption{ Average self-diffusion constant as a function of temperature for |
460 |
> |
SSD, SPC/E [Ref. \citen{Clancy94}], and TIP5P |
461 |
> |
[Ref. \citen{Jorgensen01}] compared with experimental data |
462 |
> |
[Refs. \citen{Gillen72} and \citen{Holz00}]. Of the three water models |
463 |
> |
shown, SSD has the least deviation from the experimental values. The |
464 |
> |
rapidly increasing diffusion constants for TIP5P and SSD correspond to |
465 |
> |
significant decreases in density at the higher temperatures.} |
466 |
> |
\label{diffuse} |
467 |
> |
\end{center} |
468 |
> |
\end{figure} |
469 |
|
|
470 |
|
The observed values for the diffusion constant point out one of the |
471 |
|
strengths of the SSD model. Of the three models shown, the SSD model |
495 |
|
transition occurs at 235~K. These melting transitions are |
496 |
|
considerably lower than the experimental value. |
497 |
|
|
498 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
499 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
500 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
501 |
< |
%\epsfbox{corrDiag.eps} |
502 |
< |
%\caption{An illustration of angles involved in the correlations observed in Fig. \ref{contour}.} |
503 |
< |
%\label{corrAngle} |
504 |
< |
%\end{center} |
505 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
498 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
499 |
> |
\begin{center} |
500 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
501 |
> |
\epsfbox{fullContours.eps} |
502 |
> |
\caption{ Contour plots of 2D angular pair correlation functions for |
503 |
> |
512 SSD molecules at 100~K (A \& B) and 300~K (C \& D). Dark areas |
504 |
> |
signify regions of enhanced density while light areas signify |
505 |
> |
depletion relative to the bulk density. White areas have pair |
506 |
> |
correlation values below 0.5 and black areas have values above 1.5.} |
507 |
> |
\label{contour} |
508 |
> |
\end{center} |
509 |
> |
\end{figure} |
510 |
|
|
511 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
512 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
513 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
514 |
< |
%\epsfbox{fullContours.eps} |
515 |
< |
%\caption{Contour plots of 2D angular pair correlation functions for |
516 |
< |
%512 SSD molecules at 100~K (A \& B) and 300~K (C \& D). Dark areas |
517 |
< |
%signify regions of enhanced density while light areas signify |
518 |
< |
%depletion relative to the bulk density. White areas have pair |
519 |
< |
%correlation values below 0.5 and black areas have values above 1.5.} |
520 |
< |
%\label{contour} |
521 |
< |
%\end{center} |
522 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
511 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
512 |
> |
\begin{center} |
513 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
514 |
> |
\epsfbox{corrDiag.eps} |
515 |
> |
\caption{ An illustration of angles involved in the correlations observed in Fig. \ref{contour}.} |
516 |
> |
\label{corrAngle} |
517 |
> |
\end{center} |
518 |
> |
\end{figure} |
519 |
|
|
520 |
|
Additional analysis of the melting process was performed using |
521 |
|
two-dimensional structure and dipole angle correlations. Expressions |
608 |
|
|
609 |
|
\begin{table} |
610 |
|
\begin{center} |
611 |
< |
\caption{Parameters for the original and adjusted models} |
611 |
> |
\caption{ Parameters for the original and adjusted models} |
612 |
|
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c } |
613 |
|
\hline \\[-3mm] |
614 |
< |
\ \ \ Parameters\ \ \ & \ \ \ SSD [Ref. \onlinecite{Ichiye96}] \ \ \ |
615 |
< |
& \ SSD1 [Ref. \onlinecite{Ichiye03}]\ \ & \ SSD/E\ \ & \ \ SSD/RF \\ |
614 |
> |
\ \ \ Parameters\ \ \ & \ \ \ SSD [Ref. \citen{Ichiye96}] \ \ \ |
615 |
> |
& \ SSD1 [Ref. \citen{Ichiye03}]\ \ & \ SSD/E\ \ & \ \ SSD/RF \\ |
616 |
|
\hline \\[-3mm] |
617 |
|
\ \ \ $\sigma$ (\AA) & 3.051 & 3.016 & 3.035 & 3.019\\ |
618 |
|
\ \ \ $\epsilon$ (kcal/mol) & 0.152 & 0.152 & 0.152 & 0.152\\ |
628 |
|
\end{center} |
629 |
|
\end{table} |
630 |
|
|
631 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
632 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
633 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=5in |
634 |
< |
%\epsfbox{GofRCompare.epsi} |
635 |
< |
%\caption{Plots comparing experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{Head-Gordon00_1}] with |
636 |
< |
%SSD/E and SSD1 without reaction field (top), as well as |
637 |
< |
%SSD/RF and SSD1 with reaction field turned on |
638 |
< |
%(bottom). The insets show the respective first peaks in detail. Note |
639 |
< |
%how the changes in parameters have lowered and broadened the first |
640 |
< |
%peak of SSD/E and SSD/RF.} |
641 |
< |
%\label{grcompare} |
642 |
< |
%\end{center} |
643 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
631 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
632 |
> |
\begin{center} |
633 |
> |
\epsfxsize=5in |
634 |
> |
\epsfbox{GofRCompare.epsi} |
635 |
> |
\caption{ Plots comparing experiment [Ref. \citen{Head-Gordon00_1}] with |
636 |
> |
SSD/E and SSD1 without reaction field (top), as well as |
637 |
> |
SSD/RF and SSD1 with reaction field turned on |
638 |
> |
(bottom). The insets show the respective first peaks in detail. Note |
639 |
> |
how the changes in parameters have lowered and broadened the first |
640 |
> |
peak of SSD/E and SSD/RF.} |
641 |
> |
\label{grcompare} |
642 |
> |
\end{center} |
643 |
> |
\end{figure} |
644 |
|
|
645 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
646 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
647 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
648 |
< |
%\epsfbox{dualsticky_bw.eps} |
649 |
< |
%\caption{Positive and negative isosurfaces of the sticky potential for |
650 |
< |
%SSD1 (left) and SSD/E \& SSD/RF (right). Light areas |
651 |
< |
%correspond to the tetrahedral attractive component, and darker areas |
652 |
< |
%correspond to the dipolar repulsive component.} |
653 |
< |
%\label{isosurface} |
654 |
< |
%\end{center} |
655 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
645 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
646 |
> |
\begin{center} |
647 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
648 |
> |
\epsfbox{dualsticky_bw.eps} |
649 |
> |
\caption{ Positive and negative isosurfaces of the sticky potential for |
650 |
> |
SSD1 (left) and SSD/E \& SSD/RF (right). Light areas |
651 |
> |
correspond to the tetrahedral attractive component, and darker areas |
652 |
> |
correspond to the dipolar repulsive component.} |
653 |
> |
\label{isosurface} |
654 |
> |
\end{center} |
655 |
> |
\end{figure} |
656 |
|
|
657 |
|
In the original paper detailing the development of SSD, Liu and Ichiye |
658 |
|
placed particular emphasis on an accurate description of the first |
724 |
|
simulations had the same thermalization, equilibration, and data |
725 |
|
collection times as stated previously. |
726 |
|
|
727 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
728 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
729 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
730 |
< |
%\epsfbox{ssdeDense.epsi} |
731 |
< |
%\caption{Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/E to |
732 |
< |
%SSD1 without a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
733 |
< |
%TIP5P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}] and |
734 |
< |
%experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The window shows a expansion around |
735 |
< |
%300 K with error bars included to clarify this region of |
736 |
< |
%interest. Note that both SSD1 and SSD/E show good agreement with |
737 |
< |
%experiment when the long-range correction is neglected.} |
738 |
< |
%\label{ssdedense} |
739 |
< |
%\end{center} |
740 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
727 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
728 |
> |
\begin{center} |
729 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
730 |
> |
\epsfbox{ssdeDense.epsi} |
731 |
> |
\caption{ Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/E to |
732 |
> |
SSD1 without a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \citen{Jorgensen98b}], |
733 |
> |
TIP5P [Ref. \citen{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \citen{Clancy94}] and |
734 |
> |
experiment [Ref. \citen{CRC80}]. The window shows a expansion around |
735 |
> |
300 K with error bars included to clarify this region of |
736 |
> |
interest. Note that both SSD1 and SSD/E show good agreement with |
737 |
> |
experiment when the long-range correction is neglected.} |
738 |
> |
\label{ssdedense} |
739 |
> |
\end{center} |
740 |
> |
\end{figure} |
741 |
|
|
742 |
|
Fig. \ref{ssdedense} shows the density profile for the SSD/E |
743 |
|
model in comparison to SSD1 without a reaction field, other |
761 |
|
melting transition for SSD/E was shown to occur at 235~K. The |
762 |
|
same transition temperature observed with SSD and SSD1. |
763 |
|
|
764 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
765 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
766 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
767 |
< |
%\epsfbox{ssdrfDense.epsi} |
768 |
< |
%\caption{Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/RF to |
769 |
< |
%SSD1 with a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
770 |
< |
%TIP5P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], and |
771 |
< |
%experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The inset shows the necessity of |
772 |
< |
%reparameterization when utilizing a reaction field long-ranged |
773 |
< |
%correction - SSD/RF provides significantly more accurate |
774 |
< |
%densities than SSD1 when performing room temperature |
775 |
< |
%simulations.} |
776 |
< |
%\label{ssdrfdense} |
777 |
< |
%\end{center} |
778 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
764 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
765 |
> |
\begin{center} |
766 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
767 |
> |
\epsfbox{ssdrfDense.epsi} |
768 |
> |
\caption{ Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/RF to |
769 |
> |
SSD1 with a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \citen{Jorgensen98b}], |
770 |
> |
TIP5P [Ref. \citen{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \citen{Clancy94}], and |
771 |
> |
experiment [Ref. \citen{CRC80}]. The inset shows the necessity of |
772 |
> |
reparameterization when utilizing a reaction field long-ranged |
773 |
> |
correction - SSD/RF provides significantly more accurate |
774 |
> |
densities than SSD1 when performing room temperature |
775 |
> |
simulations.} |
776 |
> |
\label{ssdrfdense} |
777 |
> |
\end{center} |
778 |
> |
\end{figure} |
779 |
|
|
780 |
|
Including the reaction field long-range correction in the simulations |
781 |
|
results in a more interesting comparison. A density profile including |
795 |
|
maximum at 255~K, fairly close to the density maxima of 260~K and |
796 |
|
265~K, shown by SSD and SSD1 respectively. |
797 |
|
|
798 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
799 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
800 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
801 |
< |
%\epsfbox{ssdeDiffuse.epsi} |
802 |
< |
%\caption{The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and |
803 |
< |
%SSD1 (both without a reaction field) along with experimental results |
804 |
< |
%[Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. The NVE calculations were |
805 |
< |
%performed at the average densities observed in the 1 atm NPT |
806 |
< |
%simulations for the respective models. SSD/E is slightly more mobile |
807 |
< |
%than experiment at all of the temperatures, but it is closer to |
808 |
< |
%experiment at biologically relevant temperatures than SSD1 without a |
809 |
< |
%long-range correction.} |
810 |
< |
%\label{ssdediffuse} |
811 |
< |
%\end{center} |
812 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
798 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
799 |
> |
\begin{center} |
800 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
801 |
> |
\epsfbox{ssdeDiffuse.epsi} |
802 |
> |
\caption{ The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and |
803 |
> |
SSD1 (both without a reaction field) along with experimental results |
804 |
> |
[Refs. \citen{Gillen72} and \citen{Holz00}]. The NVE calculations were |
805 |
> |
performed at the average densities observed in the 1 atm NPT |
806 |
> |
simulations for the respective models. SSD/E is slightly more mobile |
807 |
> |
than experiment at all of the temperatures, but it is closer to |
808 |
> |
experiment at biologically relevant temperatures than SSD1 without a |
809 |
> |
long-range correction.} |
810 |
> |
\label{ssdediffuse} |
811 |
> |
\end{center} |
812 |
> |
\end{figure} |
813 |
|
|
814 |
|
The reparameterization of the SSD water model, both for use with and |
815 |
|
without an applied long-range correction, brought the densities up to |
836 |
|
of SSD/E relative to SSD1 under the most commonly simulated |
837 |
|
conditions. |
838 |
|
|
839 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
840 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
841 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
842 |
< |
%\epsfbox{ssdrfDiffuse.epsi} |
843 |
< |
%\caption{The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and |
844 |
< |
%SSD1 (both with an active reaction field) along with |
845 |
< |
%experimental results [Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. The |
846 |
< |
%NVE calculations were performed at the average densities observed in |
847 |
< |
%the 1 atm NPT simulations for both of the models. SSD/RF |
848 |
< |
%simulates the diffusion of water throughout this temperature range |
849 |
< |
%very well. The rapidly increasing diffusion constants at high |
850 |
< |
%temperatures for both models can be attributed to lower calculated |
851 |
< |
%densities than those observed in experiment.} |
852 |
< |
%\label{ssdrfdiffuse} |
853 |
< |
%\end{center} |
854 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
839 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
840 |
> |
\begin{center} |
841 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
842 |
> |
\epsfbox{ssdrfDiffuse.epsi} |
843 |
> |
\caption{ The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and |
844 |
> |
SSD1 (both with an active reaction field) along with |
845 |
> |
experimental results [Refs. \citen{Gillen72} and \citen{Holz00}]. The |
846 |
> |
NVE calculations were performed at the average densities observed in |
847 |
> |
the 1 atm NPT simulations for both of the models. SSD/RF |
848 |
> |
simulates the diffusion of water throughout this temperature range |
849 |
> |
very well. The rapidly increasing diffusion constants at high |
850 |
> |
temperatures for both models can be attributed to lower calculated |
851 |
> |
densities than those observed in experiment.} |
852 |
> |
\label{ssdrfdiffuse} |
853 |
> |
\end{center} |
854 |
> |
\end{figure} |
855 |
|
|
856 |
|
In figure \ref{ssdrfdiffuse}, the diffusion constants for SSD/RF are |
857 |
|
compared to SSD1 with an active reaction field. Note that SSD/RF |
870 |
|
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth} |
871 |
|
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\thempfootnote} |
872 |
|
\begin{center} |
873 |
< |
\caption{Properties of the single-point water models compared with |
873 |
> |
\caption{ Properties of the single-point water models compared with |
874 |
|
experimental data at ambient conditions. Deviations of the of the |
875 |
|
averages are given in parentheses.} |
876 |
|
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c c } |
883 |
|
\ \ $D$ ($10^{-5}$ cm$^2$/s) & 1.78(0.7) & 2.51(0.18) & 2.00(0.17) & 2.32(0.06) & 2.299\cite{Mills73} \\ |
884 |
|
\ \ Coordination Number ($n_C$) & 3.9 & 4.3 & 3.8 & 4.4 & |
885 |
|
4.7\footnote{Calculated by integrating $g_{\text{OO}}(r)$ in |
886 |
< |
Ref. \onlinecite{Head-Gordon00_1}} \\ |
886 |
> |
Ref. \citen{Head-Gordon00_1}} \\ |
887 |
|
\ \ H-bonds per particle ($n_H$) & 3.7 & 3.6 & 3.7 & 3.7 & |
888 |
|
3.5\footnote{Calculated by integrating $g_{\text{OH}}(r)$ in |
889 |
< |
Ref. \onlinecite{Soper86}} \\ |
890 |
< |
\ \ $\tau_1$ (ps) & 10.9(0.6) & 7.3(0.4) & 7.5(0.7) & 7.2(0.4) & 5.7\footnote{Calculated for 298 K from data in Ref. \onlinecite{Eisenberg69}} \\ |
889 |
> |
Ref. \citen{Soper86}} \\ |
890 |
> |
\ \ $\tau_1$ (ps) & 10.9(0.6) & 7.3(0.4) & 7.5(0.7) & 7.2(0.4) & 5.7\footnote{Calculated for 298 K from data in Ref. \citen{Eisenberg69}} \\ |
891 |
|
\ \ $\tau_2$ (ps) & 4.7(0.4) & 3.1(0.2) & 3.5(0.3) & 3.2(0.2) & 2.3\footnote{Calculated for 298 K from data in |
892 |
< |
Ref. \onlinecite{Krynicki66}} |
892 |
> |
Ref. \citen{Krynicki66}} |
893 |
|
\end{tabular} |
894 |
|
\label{liquidproperties} |
895 |
|
\end{center} |
938 |
|
averaged over five detailed NVE simulations performed at the ambient |
939 |
|
conditions for each of the respective models. It should be noted that |
940 |
|
the commonly cited value of 1.9 ps for $\tau_2$ was determined from |
941 |
< |
the NMR data in Ref. \onlinecite{Krynicki66} at a temperature near |
941 |
> |
the NMR data in Ref. \citen{Krynicki66} at a temperature near |
942 |
|
34$^\circ$C.\cite{Rahman71} Because of the strong temperature |
943 |
|
dependence of $\tau_2$, it is necessary to recalculate it at 298~K to |
944 |
|
make proper comparisons. The value shown in Table |
945 |
|
\ref{liquidproperties} was calculated from the same NMR data in the |
946 |
< |
fashion described in Ref. \onlinecite{Krynicki66}. Similarly, $\tau_1$ was |
947 |
< |
recomputed for 298~K from the data in Ref. \onlinecite{Eisenberg69}. |
946 |
> |
fashion described in Ref. \citen{Krynicki66}. Similarly, $\tau_1$ was |
947 |
> |
recomputed for 298~K from the data in Ref. \citen{Eisenberg69}. |
948 |
|
Again, SSD/E and SSD/RF show improved behavior over SSD1, both with |
949 |
|
and without an active reaction field. Turning on the reaction field |
950 |
|
leads to much improved time constants for SSD1; however, these results |
955 |
|
|
956 |
|
\subsection{Additional Observations} |
957 |
|
|
958 |
< |
%\begin{figure} |
959 |
< |
%\begin{center} |
960 |
< |
%\epsfxsize=6in |
961 |
< |
%\epsfbox{icei_bw.eps} |
962 |
< |
%\caption{The most stable crystal structure assumed by the SSD family |
963 |
< |
%of water models. We refer to this structure as Ice-{\it i} to |
964 |
< |
%indicate its origins in computer simulation. This image was taken of |
965 |
< |
%the (001) face of the crystal.} |
966 |
< |
%\label{weirdice} |
967 |
< |
%\end{center} |
968 |
< |
%\end{figure} |
958 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
959 |
> |
\begin{center} |
960 |
> |
\epsfxsize=6in |
961 |
> |
\epsfbox{icei_bw.eps} |
962 |
> |
\caption{ The most stable crystal structure assumed by the SSD family |
963 |
> |
of water models. We refer to this structure as Ice-{\it i} to |
964 |
> |
indicate its origins in computer simulation. This image was taken of |
965 |
> |
the (001) face of the crystal.} |
966 |
> |
\label{weirdice} |
967 |
> |
\end{center} |
968 |
> |
\end{figure} |
969 |
|
|
970 |
|
While performing a series of melting simulations on an early iteration |
971 |
|
of SSD/E not discussed in this paper, we observed |
1006 |
|
|
1007 |
|
\begin{table} |
1008 |
|
\begin{center} |
1009 |
< |
\caption{Enthalpies of Formation (in kcal / mol) of the three crystal |
1009 |
> |
\caption{ Enthalpies of Formation (in kcal / mol) of the three crystal |
1010 |
|
structures (at 1 K) exhibited by the SSD family of water models} |
1011 |
|
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c } |
1012 |
|
\hline \\[-3mm] |
1082 |
|
|
1083 |
|
\bibliographystyle{jcp} |
1084 |
|
\bibliography{nptSSD} |
1089 |
– |
|
1090 |
– |
\newpage |
1091 |
– |
|
1092 |
– |
\begin{list} |
1093 |
– |
{Figure \arabic{captions}: }{\usecounter{captions} |
1094 |
– |
\setlength{\rightmargin}{\leftmargin}} |
1095 |
– |
|
1096 |
– |
\item Energy conservation using both quaternion-based integration and |
1097 |
– |
the {\sc dlm} method with increasing time step. The larger time step |
1098 |
– |
plots are shifted from the true energy baseline (that of $\Delta t$ = |
1099 |
– |
0.1~fs) for clarity. |
1100 |
– |
|
1101 |
– |
\item Density versus temperature for TIP4P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
1102 |
– |
TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], SPC/E |
1103 |
– |
[Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], SSD without Reaction Field, SSD, and |
1104 |
– |
experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The arrows indicate the change |
1105 |
– |
in densities observed when turning off the reaction field. The the |
1106 |
– |
lower than expected densities for the SSD model were what prompted the |
1107 |
– |
original reparameterization of SSD1 [Ref. \onlinecite{Ichiye03}]. |
1108 |
– |
|
1109 |
– |
\item Average self-diffusion constant as a function of temperature for |
1110 |
– |
SSD, SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], and TIP5P |
1111 |
– |
[Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen01}] compared with experimental data |
1112 |
– |
[Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. Of the three |
1113 |
– |
water models shown, SSD has the least deviation from the experimental |
1114 |
– |
values. The rapidly increasing diffusion constants for TIP5P and SSD |
1115 |
– |
correspond to significant decreases in density at the higher |
1116 |
– |
temperatures. |
1117 |
– |
|
1118 |
– |
\item An illustration of angles involved in the correlations observed in |
1119 |
– |
Fig. \ref{contour}. |
1120 |
– |
|
1121 |
– |
\item Contour plots of 2D angular pair correlation functions for |
1122 |
– |
512 SSD molecules at 100~K (A \& B) and 300~K (C \& D). Dark areas |
1123 |
– |
signify regions of enhanced density while light areas signify |
1124 |
– |
depletion relative to the bulk density. White areas have pair |
1125 |
– |
correlation values below 0.5 and black areas have values above 1.5. |
1126 |
– |
|
1127 |
– |
\item Plots comparing experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{Head-Gordon00_1}] with |
1128 |
– |
SSD/E and SSD1 without reaction field (top), as well as SSD/RF and |
1129 |
– |
SSD1 with reaction field turned on (bottom). The insets show the |
1130 |
– |
respective first peaks in detail. Note how the changes in parameters |
1131 |
– |
have lowered and broadened the first peak of SSD/E and SSD/RF. |
1132 |
– |
|
1133 |
– |
\item Positive and negative isosurfaces of the sticky potential for |
1134 |
– |
SSD1 (left) and SSD/E \& SSD/RF (right). Light areas |
1135 |
– |
correspond to the tetrahedral attractive component, and darker areas |
1136 |
– |
correspond to the dipolar repulsive component. |
1137 |
– |
|
1138 |
– |
\item Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/E to |
1139 |
– |
SSD1 without a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
1140 |
– |
TIP5P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}] and |
1141 |
– |
experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The window shows a expansion around |
1142 |
– |
300 K with error bars included to clarify this region of |
1143 |
– |
interest. Note that both SSD1 and SSD/E show good agreement with |
1144 |
– |
experiment when the long-range correction is neglected. |
1145 |
– |
|
1146 |
– |
\item Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/RF to |
1147 |
– |
SSD1 with a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
1148 |
– |
TIP5P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], and |
1149 |
– |
experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The inset shows the necessity of |
1150 |
– |
reparameterization when utilizing a reaction field long-ranged |
1151 |
– |
correction - SSD/RF provides significantly more accurate |
1152 |
– |
densities than SSD1 when performing room temperature |
1153 |
– |
simulations. |
1154 |
– |
|
1155 |
– |
\item The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and |
1156 |
– |
SSD1 (both without a reaction field) along with experimental results |
1157 |
– |
[Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. The NVE calculations were |
1158 |
– |
performed at the average densities observed in the 1 atm NPT |
1159 |
– |
simulations for the respective models. SSD/E is slightly more mobile |
1160 |
– |
than experiment at all of the temperatures, but it is closer to |
1161 |
– |
experiment at biologically relevant temperatures than SSD1 without a |
1162 |
– |
long-range correction. |
1163 |
– |
|
1164 |
– |
\item The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and |
1165 |
– |
SSD1 (both with an active reaction field) along with |
1166 |
– |
experimental results [Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. The |
1167 |
– |
NVE calculations were performed at the average densities observed in |
1168 |
– |
the 1 atm NPT simulations for both of the models. SSD/RF |
1169 |
– |
simulates the diffusion of water throughout this temperature range |
1170 |
– |
very well. The rapidly increasing diffusion constants at high |
1171 |
– |
temperatures for both models can be attributed to lower calculated |
1172 |
– |
densities than those observed in experiment. |
1173 |
– |
|
1174 |
– |
\item The most stable crystal structure assumed by the SSD family |
1175 |
– |
of water models. We refer to this structure as Ice-{\it i} to |
1176 |
– |
indicate its origins in computer simulation. This image was taken of |
1177 |
– |
the (001) face of the crystal. |
1178 |
– |
\end{list} |
1179 |
– |
|
1180 |
– |
\newpage |
1181 |
– |
|
1182 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1183 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1184 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1185 |
– |
\epsfbox{timeStep.epsi} |
1186 |
– |
%\caption{Energy conservation using both quaternion-based integration and |
1187 |
– |
%the {\sc dlm} method with increasing time step. The larger time step |
1188 |
– |
%plots are shifted from the true energy baseline (that of $\Delta t$ = |
1189 |
– |
%0.1~fs) for clarity.} |
1190 |
– |
\label{timestep} |
1191 |
– |
\end{center} |
1192 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1193 |
– |
|
1194 |
– |
\newpage |
1195 |
– |
|
1196 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1197 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1198 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1199 |
– |
\epsfbox{denseSSDnew.eps} |
1200 |
– |
%\caption{Density versus temperature for TIP4P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
1201 |
– |
% TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], SSD |
1202 |
– |
% without Reaction Field, SSD, and experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The |
1203 |
– |
% arrows indicate the change in densities observed when turning off the |
1204 |
– |
% reaction field. The the lower than expected densities for the SSD |
1205 |
– |
% model were what prompted the original reparameterization of SSD1 |
1206 |
– |
% [Ref. \onlinecite{Ichiye03}].} |
1207 |
– |
\label{dense1} |
1208 |
– |
\end{center} |
1209 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1085 |
|
|
1211 |
– |
\newpage |
1086 |
|
|
1213 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1214 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1215 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1216 |
– |
\epsfbox{betterDiffuse.epsi} |
1217 |
– |
%\caption{Average self-diffusion constant as a function of temperature for |
1218 |
– |
%SSD, SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], and TIP5P |
1219 |
– |
%[Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen01}] compared with experimental data |
1220 |
– |
%[Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. Of the three water models |
1221 |
– |
%shown, SSD has the least deviation from the experimental values. The |
1222 |
– |
%rapidly increasing diffusion constants for TIP5P and SSD correspond to |
1223 |
– |
%significant decreases in density at the higher temperatures.} |
1224 |
– |
\label{diffuse} |
1225 |
– |
\end{center} |
1226 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1227 |
– |
|
1228 |
– |
\newpage |
1229 |
– |
|
1230 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1231 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1232 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1233 |
– |
\epsfbox{corrDiag.eps} |
1234 |
– |
%\caption{An illustration of angles involved in the correlations observed in Fig. \ref{contour}.} |
1235 |
– |
\label{corrAngle} |
1236 |
– |
\end{center} |
1237 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1238 |
– |
|
1239 |
– |
\newpage |
1240 |
– |
|
1241 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1242 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1243 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1244 |
– |
\epsfbox{fullContours.eps} |
1245 |
– |
%\caption{Contour plots of 2D angular pair correlation functions for |
1246 |
– |
%512 SSD molecules at 100~K (A \& B) and 300~K (C \& D). Dark areas |
1247 |
– |
%signify regions of enhanced density while light areas signify |
1248 |
– |
%depletion relative to the bulk density. White areas have pair |
1249 |
– |
%correlation values below 0.5 and black areas have values above 1.5.} |
1250 |
– |
\label{contour} |
1251 |
– |
\end{center} |
1252 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1253 |
– |
|
1254 |
– |
\newpage |
1255 |
– |
|
1256 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1257 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1258 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1259 |
– |
\epsfbox{GofRCompare.epsi} |
1260 |
– |
%\caption{Plots comparing experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{Head-Gordon00_1}] with |
1261 |
– |
%SSD/E and SSD1 without reaction field (top), as well as |
1262 |
– |
%SSD/RF and SSD1 with reaction field turned on |
1263 |
– |
%(bottom). The insets show the respective first peaks in detail. Note |
1264 |
– |
%how the changes in parameters have lowered and broadened the first |
1265 |
– |
%peak of SSD/E and SSD/RF.} |
1266 |
– |
\label{grcompare} |
1267 |
– |
\end{center} |
1268 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1269 |
– |
|
1270 |
– |
\newpage |
1271 |
– |
|
1272 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1273 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1274 |
– |
\epsfxsize=7in |
1275 |
– |
\epsfbox{dualsticky_bw.eps} |
1276 |
– |
%\caption{Positive and negative isosurfaces of the sticky potential for |
1277 |
– |
%SSD1 (left) and SSD/E \& SSD/RF (right). Light areas |
1278 |
– |
%correspond to the tetrahedral attractive component, and darker areas |
1279 |
– |
%correspond to the dipolar repulsive component.} |
1280 |
– |
\label{isosurface} |
1281 |
– |
\end{center} |
1282 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1283 |
– |
|
1284 |
– |
\newpage |
1285 |
– |
|
1286 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1287 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1288 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1289 |
– |
\epsfbox{ssdeDense.epsi} |
1290 |
– |
%\caption{Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/E to |
1291 |
– |
%SSD1 without a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
1292 |
– |
%TIP5P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}] and |
1293 |
– |
%experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The window shows a expansion around |
1294 |
– |
%300 K with error bars included to clarify this region of |
1295 |
– |
%interest. Note that both SSD1 and SSD/E show good agreement with |
1296 |
– |
%experiment when the long-range correction is neglected.} |
1297 |
– |
\label{ssdedense} |
1298 |
– |
\end{center} |
1299 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1300 |
– |
|
1301 |
– |
\newpage |
1302 |
– |
|
1303 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1304 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1305 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1306 |
– |
\epsfbox{ssdrfDense.epsi} |
1307 |
– |
%\caption{Comparison of densities calculated with SSD/RF to |
1308 |
– |
%SSD1 with a reaction field, TIP3P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen98b}], |
1309 |
– |
%TIP5P [Ref. \onlinecite{Jorgensen00}], SPC/E [Ref. \onlinecite{Clancy94}], and |
1310 |
– |
%experiment [Ref. \onlinecite{CRC80}]. The inset shows the necessity of |
1311 |
– |
%reparameterization when utilizing a reaction field long-ranged |
1312 |
– |
%correction - SSD/RF provides significantly more accurate |
1313 |
– |
%densities than SSD1 when performing room temperature |
1314 |
– |
%simulations.} |
1315 |
– |
\label{ssdrfdense} |
1316 |
– |
\end{center} |
1317 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1318 |
– |
|
1319 |
– |
\newpage |
1320 |
– |
|
1321 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1322 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1323 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1324 |
– |
\epsfbox{ssdeDiffuse.epsi} |
1325 |
– |
%\caption{The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/E and |
1326 |
– |
%SSD1 (both without a reaction field) along with experimental results |
1327 |
– |
%[Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. The NVE calculations were |
1328 |
– |
%performed at the average densities observed in the 1 atm NPT |
1329 |
– |
%simulations for the respective models. SSD/E is slightly more mobile |
1330 |
– |
%than experiment at all of the temperatures, but it is closer to |
1331 |
– |
%experiment at biologically relevant temperatures than SSD1 without a |
1332 |
– |
%long-range correction.} |
1333 |
– |
\label{ssdediffuse} |
1334 |
– |
\end{center} |
1335 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1336 |
– |
|
1337 |
– |
\newpage |
1338 |
– |
|
1339 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1340 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1341 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1342 |
– |
\epsfbox{ssdrfDiffuse.epsi} |
1343 |
– |
%\caption{The diffusion constants calculated from SSD/RF and |
1344 |
– |
%SSD1 (both with an active reaction field) along with |
1345 |
– |
%experimental results [Refs. \onlinecite{Gillen72} and \onlinecite{Holz00}]. The |
1346 |
– |
%NVE calculations were performed at the average densities observed in |
1347 |
– |
%the 1 atm NPT simulations for both of the models. SSD/RF |
1348 |
– |
%simulates the diffusion of water throughout this temperature range |
1349 |
– |
%very well. The rapidly increasing diffusion constants at high |
1350 |
– |
%temperatures for both models can be attributed to lower calculated |
1351 |
– |
%densities than those observed in experiment.} |
1352 |
– |
\label{ssdrfdiffuse} |
1353 |
– |
\end{center} |
1354 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1355 |
– |
|
1356 |
– |
\newpage |
1357 |
– |
|
1358 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
1359 |
– |
\begin{center} |
1360 |
– |
\epsfxsize=6in |
1361 |
– |
\epsfbox{icei_bw.eps} |
1362 |
– |
%\caption{The most stable crystal structure assumed by the SSD family |
1363 |
– |
%of water models. We refer to this structure as Ice-{\it i} to |
1364 |
– |
%indicate its origins in computer simulation. This image was taken of |
1365 |
– |
%the (001) face of the crystal.} |
1366 |
– |
\label{weirdice} |
1367 |
– |
\end{center} |
1368 |
– |
\end{figure} |
1369 |
– |
|
1087 |
|
\end{document} |