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

Comparing trunk/tengDissertation/Introduction.tex (file contents):
Revision 2725 by tim, Fri Apr 21 05:45:14 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2776 by tim, Thu May 25 21:32:14 2006 UTC

# Line 831 | Line 831 | $\varphi_1(t)$ and $\varphi_2(t$ respectively , we hav
831   error of splitting method in terms of commutator of the
832   operators(\ref{introEquation:exponentialOperator}) associated with
833   the sub-flow. For operators $hX$ and $hY$ which are associate to
834 < $\varphi_1(t)$ and $\varphi_2(t$ respectively , we have
834 > $\varphi_1(t)$ and $\varphi_2(t)$ respectively , we have
835   \begin{equation}
836   \exp (hX + hY) = \exp (hZ)
837   \end{equation}
# Line 846 | Line 846 | can obtain
846   \]
847   Applying Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula to Sprang splitting, we
848   can obtain
849 < \begin{eqnarray*}
849 > \begin{equation}
850   \exp (h X/2)\exp (h Y)\exp (h X/2) & = & \exp (h X + h Y + h^2
851   [X,Y]/4 + h^2 [Y,X]/4 \\ & & \mbox{} + h^2 [X,X]/8 + h^2 [Y,Y]/8 \\
852   & & \mbox{} + h^3 [Y,[Y,X]]/12 - h^3 [X,[X,Y]]/24 & & \mbox{} +
853   \ldots )
854 < \end{eqnarray*}
854 > \end{equation}
855   Since \[ [X,Y] + [Y,X] = 0\] and \[ [X,X] = 0\], the dominant local
856   error of Spring splitting is proportional to $h^3$. The same
857   procedure can be applied to general splitting,  of the form
# Line 1022 | Line 1022 | discontinuity in the potential energy curve
1022   evaluation is to apply cutoff where particles farther than a
1023   predetermined distance, are not included in the calculation
1024   \cite{Frenkel1996}. The use of a cutoff radius will cause a
1025 < discontinuity in the potential energy curve
1026 < (Fig.~\ref{introFig:shiftPot}). Fortunately, one can shift the
1027 < potential to ensure the potential curve go smoothly to zero at the
1028 < cutoff radius. Cutoff strategy works pretty well for Lennard-Jones
1029 < interaction because of its short range nature. However, simply
1030 < truncating the electrostatic interaction with the use of cutoff has
1031 < been shown to lead to severe artifacts in simulations. Ewald
1032 < summation, in which the slowly conditionally convergent Coulomb
1033 < potential is transformed into direct and reciprocal sums with rapid
1034 < and absolute convergence, has proved to minimize the periodicity
1035 < artifacts in liquid simulations. Taking the advantages of the fast
1036 < Fourier transform (FFT) for calculating discrete Fourier transforms,
1037 < the particle mesh-based methods are accelerated from $O(N^{3/2})$ to
1038 < $O(N logN)$. An alternative approach is \emph{fast multipole
1039 < method}, which treats Coulombic interaction exactly at short range,
1040 < and approximate the potential at long range through multipolar
1041 < expansion. In spite of their wide acceptances at the molecular
1042 < simulation community, these two methods are hard to be implemented
1043 < correctly and efficiently. Instead, we use a damped and
1044 < charge-neutralized Coulomb potential method developed by Wolf and
1045 < his coworkers. The shifted Coulomb potential for particle $i$ and
1046 < particle $j$ at distance $r_{rj}$ is given by:
1025 > discontinuity in the potential energy curve. Fortunately, one can
1026 > shift the potential to ensure the potential curve go smoothly to
1027 > zero at the cutoff radius. Cutoff strategy works pretty well for
1028 > Lennard-Jones interaction because of its short range nature.
1029 > However, simply truncating the electrostatic interaction with the
1030 > use of cutoff has been shown to lead to severe artifacts in
1031 > simulations. Ewald summation, in which the slowly conditionally
1032 > convergent Coulomb potential is transformed into direct and
1033 > reciprocal sums with rapid and absolute convergence, has proved to
1034 > minimize the periodicity artifacts in liquid simulations. Taking the
1035 > advantages of the fast Fourier transform (FFT) for calculating
1036 > discrete Fourier transforms, the particle mesh-based methods are
1037 > accelerated from $O(N^{3/2})$ to $O(N logN)$. An alternative
1038 > approach is \emph{fast multipole method}, which treats Coulombic
1039 > interaction exactly at short range, and approximate the potential at
1040 > long range through multipolar expansion. In spite of their wide
1041 > acceptances at the molecular simulation community, these two methods
1042 > are hard to be implemented correctly and efficiently. Instead, we
1043 > use a damped and charge-neutralized Coulomb potential method
1044 > developed by Wolf and his coworkers. The shifted Coulomb potential
1045 > for particle $i$ and particle $j$ at distance $r_{rj}$ is given by:
1046   \begin{equation}
1047   V(r_{ij})= \frac{q_i q_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha
1048   r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow
# Line 1238 | Line 1237 | Q^T Q = 1$, \label{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint}
1237   where $I_{ii}$ is the diagonal element of the inertia tensor. This
1238   constrained Hamiltonian equation subjects to a holonomic constraint,
1239   \begin{equation}
1240 < Q^T Q = 1$, \label{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint}
1240 > Q^T Q = 1, \label{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint}
1241   \end{equation}
1242   which is used to ensure rotation matrix's orthogonality.
1243   Differentiating \ref{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint} and using
# Line 1263 | Line 1262 | simply evolve the system in constraint manifold. The t
1262   In general, there are two ways to satisfy the holonomic constraints.
1263   We can use constraint force provided by lagrange multiplier on the
1264   normal manifold to keep the motion on constraint space. Or we can
1265 < simply evolve the system in constraint manifold. The two method are
1266 < proved to be equivalent. The holonomic constraint and equations of
1267 < motions define a constraint manifold for rigid body
1265 > simply evolve the system in constraint manifold. These two methods
1266 > are proved to be equivalent. The holonomic constraint and equations
1267 > of motions define a constraint manifold for rigid body
1268   \[
1269   M = \left\{ {(Q,P):Q^T Q = 1,Q^T PJ^{ - 1}  + J^{ - 1} P^T Q = 0}
1270   \right\}.
# Line 1478 | Line 1477 | kinetic energy are listed in the below table,
1477   \]
1478   The equations of motion corresponding to potential energy and
1479   kinetic energy are listed in the below table,
1480 + \begin{table}
1481 + \caption{Equations of motion due to Potential and Kinetic Energies}
1482   \begin{center}
1483   \begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
1484    \hline
# Line 1490 | Line 1491 | A second-order symplectic method is now obtained by th
1491    \hline
1492   \end{tabular}
1493   \end{center}
1494 < A second-order symplectic method is now obtained by the composition
1495 < of the flow maps,
1494 > \end{table}
1495 > A second-order symplectic method is now obtained by the
1496 > composition of the flow maps,
1497   \[
1498   \varphi _{\Delta t}  = \varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}  \circ \varphi
1499   _{\Delta t,T}  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}.
# Line 1787 | Line 1789 | Equation, \zeta can be taken as a scalar. In general,
1789   when the system become more and more complicate. Instead, various
1790   approaches based on hydrodynamics have been developed to calculate
1791   the friction coefficients. The friction effect is isotropic in
1792 < Equation, \zeta can be taken as a scalar. In general, friction
1793 < tensor \Xi is a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
1792 > Equation, $\zeta$ can be taken as a scalar. In general, friction
1793 > tensor $\Xi$ is a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
1794   \[
1795   \Xi  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1796     {\Xi _{}^{tt} } & {\Xi _{}^{rt} }  \\

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines