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 2721 by tim, Thu Apr 20 03:42:21 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2801 by tim, Tue Jun 6 14:56:36 2006 UTC

# Line 93 | Line 93 | the kinetic, $K$, and potential energies, $U$ \cite{to
93   The actual trajectory, along which a dynamical system may move from
94   one point to another within a specified time, is derived by finding
95   the path which minimizes the time integral of the difference between
96 < the kinetic, $K$, and potential energies, $U$ \cite{tolman79}.
96 > the kinetic, $K$, and potential energies, $U$ \cite{Tolman1979}.
97   \begin{equation}
98   \delta \int_{t_1 }^{t_2 } {(K - U)dt = 0} ,
99   \label{introEquation:halmitonianPrinciple1}
# Line 189 | Line 189 | known as the canonical equations of motions \cite{Gold
189   Eq.~\ref{introEquation:motionHamiltonianCoordinate} and
190   Eq.~\ref{introEquation:motionHamiltonianMomentum} are Hamilton's
191   equation of motion. Due to their symmetrical formula, they are also
192 < known as the canonical equations of motions \cite{Goldstein01}.
192 > known as the canonical equations of motions \cite{Goldstein2001}.
193  
194   An important difference between Lagrangian approach and the
195   Hamiltonian approach is that the Lagrangian is considered to be a
# Line 200 | Line 200 | equations\cite{Marion90}.
200   appropriate for application to statistical mechanics and quantum
201   mechanics, since it treats the coordinate and its time derivative as
202   independent variables and it only works with 1st-order differential
203 < equations\cite{Marion90}.
203 > equations\cite{Marion1990}.
204  
205   In Newtonian Mechanics, a system described by conservative forces
206   conserves the total energy \ref{introEquation:energyConservation}.
# Line 470 | Line 470 | statistical ensemble are identical \cite{Frenkel1996,
470   many-body system in Statistical Mechanics. Fortunately, Ergodic
471   Hypothesis is proposed to make a connection between time average and
472   ensemble average. It states that time average and average over the
473 < statistical ensemble are identical \cite{Frenkel1996, leach01:mm}.
473 > statistical ensemble are identical \cite{Frenkel1996, Leach2001}.
474   \begin{equation}
475   \langle A(q , p) \rangle_t = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty }
476   \frac{1}{t}\int\limits_0^t {A(q(t),p(t))dt = \int\limits_\Gamma
# Line 484 | Line 484 | reasonable, the Monte Carlo techniques\cite{metropolis
484   a properly weighted statistical average. This allows the researcher
485   freedom of choice when deciding how best to measure a given
486   observable. In case an ensemble averaged approach sounds most
487 < reasonable, the Monte Carlo techniques\cite{metropolis:1949} can be
487 > reasonable, the Monte Carlo techniques\cite{Metropolis1949} can be
488   utilized. Or if the system lends itself to a time averaging
489   approach, the Molecular Dynamics techniques in
490   Sec.~\ref{introSection:molecularDynamics} will be the best
# Line 498 | Line 498 | issue. The velocity verlet method, which happens to be
498   within the equations. Since 1990, geometric integrators, which
499   preserve various phase-flow invariants such as symplectic structure,
500   volume and time reversal symmetry, are developed to address this
501 < issue. The velocity verlet method, which happens to be a simple
502 < example of symplectic integrator, continues to gain its popularity
503 < in molecular dynamics community. This fact can be partly explained
504 < by its geometric nature.
501 > issue\cite{Dullweber1997, McLachlan1998, Leimkuhler1999}. The
502 > velocity verlet method, which happens to be a simple example of
503 > symplectic integrator, continues to gain its popularity in molecular
504 > dynamics community. This fact can be partly explained by its
505 > geometric nature.
506  
507   \subsection{\label{introSection:symplecticManifold}Symplectic Manifold}
508   A \emph{manifold} is an abstract mathematical space. It locally
# Line 565 | Line 566 | Another generalization of Hamiltonian dynamics is Pois
566   \end{equation}In this case, $f$ is
567   called a \emph{Hamiltonian vector field}.
568  
569 < Another generalization of Hamiltonian dynamics is Poisson Dynamics,
569 > Another generalization of Hamiltonian dynamics is Poisson
570 > Dynamics\cite{Olver1986},
571   \begin{equation}
572   \dot x = J(x)\nabla _x H \label{introEquation:poissonHamiltonian}
573   \end{equation}
# Line 612 | Line 614 | The hidden geometric properties of ODE and its flow pl
614  
615   \subsection{\label{introSection:geometricProperties}Geometric Properties}
616  
617 < The hidden geometric properties of ODE and its flow play important
618 < roles in numerical studies. Many of them can be found in systems
619 < which occur naturally in applications.
617 > The hidden geometric properties\cite{Budd1999, Marsden1998} of ODE
618 > and its flow play important roles in numerical studies. Many of them
619 > can be found in systems which occur naturally in applications.
620  
621   Let $\varphi$ be the flow of Hamiltonian vector field, $\varphi$ is
622   a \emph{symplectic} flow if it satisfies,
# Line 658 | Line 660 | smooth function $G$ is given by,
660   which is the condition for conserving \emph{first integral}. For a
661   canonical Hamiltonian system, the time evolution of an arbitrary
662   smooth function $G$ is given by,
663 < \begin{equation}
664 < \begin{array}{c}
665 < \frac{{dG(x(t))}}{{dt}} = [\nabla _x G(x(t))]^T \dot x(t) \\
666 <  = [\nabla _x G(x(t))]^T J\nabla _x H(x(t)). \\
665 < \end{array}
663 >
664 > \begin{eqnarray}
665 > \frac{{dG(x(t))}}{{dt}} & = & [\nabla _x G(x(t))]^T \dot x(t) \\
666 >                        & = & [\nabla _x G(x(t))]^T J\nabla _x H(x(t)). \\
667   \label{introEquation:firstIntegral1}
668 < \end{equation}
668 > \end{eqnarray}
669 >
670 >
671   Using poisson bracket notion, Equation
672   \ref{introEquation:firstIntegral1} can be rewritten as
673   \[
# Line 679 | Line 682 | is a \emph{first integral}, which is due to the fact $
682   is a \emph{first integral}, which is due to the fact $\{ H,H\}  =
683   0$.
684  
685 <
683 < When designing any numerical methods, one should always try to
685 > When designing any numerical methods, one should always try to
686   preserve the structural properties of the original ODE and its flow.
687  
688   \subsection{\label{introSection:constructionSymplectic}Construction of Symplectic Methods}
# Line 697 | Line 699 | Generating function tends to lead to methods which are
699   \item Splitting methods
700   \end{enumerate}
701  
702 < Generating function tends to lead to methods which are cumbersome
703 < and difficult to use. In dissipative systems, variational methods
704 < can capture the decay of energy accurately. Since their
705 < geometrically unstable nature against non-Hamiltonian perturbations,
706 < ordinary implicit Runge-Kutta methods are not suitable for
707 < Hamiltonian system. Recently, various high-order explicit
708 < Runge--Kutta methods have been developed to overcome this
702 > Generating function\cite{Channell1990} tends to lead to methods
703 > which are cumbersome and difficult to use. In dissipative systems,
704 > variational methods can capture the decay of energy
705 > accurately\cite{Kane2000}. Since their geometrically unstable nature
706 > against non-Hamiltonian perturbations, ordinary implicit Runge-Kutta
707 > methods are not suitable for Hamiltonian system. Recently, various
708 > high-order explicit Runge-Kutta methods
709 > \cite{Owren1992,Chen2003}have been developed to overcome this
710   instability. However, due to computational penalty involved in
711   implementing the Runge-Kutta methods, they do not attract too much
712   attention from Molecular Dynamics community. Instead, splitting have
713   been widely accepted since they exploit natural decompositions of
714 < the system\cite{Tuckerman92}.
714 > the system\cite{Tuckerman1992, McLachlan1998}.
715  
716   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:splittingMethod}Splitting Method}
717  
# Line 831 | Line 834 | $\varphi_1(t)$ and $\varphi_2(t$ respectively , we hav
834   error of splitting method in terms of commutator of the
835   operators(\ref{introEquation:exponentialOperator}) associated with
836   the sub-flow. For operators $hX$ and $hY$ which are associate to
837 < $\varphi_1(t)$ and $\varphi_2(t$ respectively , we have
837 > $\varphi_1(t)$ and $\varphi_2(t)$ respectively , we have
838   \begin{equation}
839   \exp (hX + hY) = \exp (hZ)
840   \end{equation}
# Line 844 | Line 847 | Applying Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula to Sprang sp
847   \[
848   [X,Y] = XY - YX .
849   \]
850 < Applying Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula to Sprang splitting, we
851 < can obtain
850 > Applying Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula\cite{Varadarajan1974} to
851 > Sprang splitting, we can obtain
852   \begin{eqnarray*}
853 < \exp (h X/2)\exp (h Y)\exp (h X/2) & = & \exp (h X + h Y + h^2
854 < [X,Y]/4 + h^2 [Y,X]/4 \\ & & \mbox{} + h^2 [X,X]/8 + h^2 [Y,Y]/8 \\
855 < & & \mbox{} + h^3 [Y,[Y,X]]/12 - h^3 [X,[X,Y]]/24 & & \mbox{} +
853 < \ldots )
853 > \exp (h X/2)\exp (h Y)\exp (h X/2) & = & \exp (h X + h Y + h^2 [X,Y]/4 + h^2 [Y,X]/4 \\
854 >                                   &   & \mbox{} + h^2 [X,X]/8 + h^2 [Y,Y]/8 \\
855 >                                   &   & \mbox{} + h^3 [Y,[Y,X]]/12 - h^3[X,[X,Y]]/24 + \ldots )
856   \end{eqnarray*}
857   Since \[ [X,Y] + [Y,X] = 0\] and \[ [X,X] = 0\], the dominant local
858   error of Spring splitting is proportional to $h^3$. The same
# Line 859 | Line 861 | Careful choice of coefficient $a_1 ,\ldot , b_m$ will
861   \varphi _{b_m h}^2  \circ \varphi _{a_m h}^1  \circ \varphi _{b_{m -
862   1} h}^2  \circ  \ldots  \circ \varphi _{a_1 h}^1 .
863   \end{equation}
864 < Careful choice of coefficient $a_1 ,\ldot , b_m$ will lead to higher
864 > Careful choice of coefficient $a_1 \ldots b_m$ will lead to higher
865   order method. Yoshida proposed an elegant way to compose higher
866 < order methods based on symmetric splitting. Given a symmetric second
867 < order base method $ \varphi _h^{(2)} $, a fourth-order symmetric
868 < method can be constructed by composing,
866 > order methods based on symmetric splitting\cite{Yoshida1990}. Given
867 > a symmetric second order base method $ \varphi _h^{(2)} $, a
868 > fourth-order symmetric method can be constructed by composing,
869   \[
870   \varphi _h^{(4)}  = \varphi _{\alpha h}^{(2)}  \circ \varphi _{\beta
871   h}^{(2)}  \circ \varphi _{\alpha h}^{(2)}
# Line 892 | Line 894 | T(t) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\frac{{m_i v_i^2 }}{{fk_
894   simulations. For instance, instantaneous temperature of an
895   Hamiltonian system of $N$ particle can be measured by
896   \[
897 < T(t) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\frac{{m_i v_i^2 }}{{fk_B }}}
897 > T = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\frac{{m_i v_i^2 }}{{fk_B }}}
898   \]
899   where $m_i$ and $v_i$ are the mass and velocity of $i$th particle
900   respectively, $f$ is the number of degrees of freedom, and $k_B$ is
# Line 912 | Line 914 | initialization of a simulation. Sec.~\ref{introSec:pro
914   \end{enumerate}
915   These three individual steps will be covered in the following
916   sections. Sec.~\ref{introSec:initialSystemSettings} deals with the
917 < initialization of a simulation. Sec.~\ref{introSec:production} will
918 < discusses issues in production run, including the force evaluation
917 < and the numerical integration schemes of the equations of motion .
917 > initialization of a simulation. Sec.~\ref{introSection:production}
918 > will discusses issues in production run.
919   Sec.~\ref{introSection:Analysis} provides the theoretical tools for
920   trajectory analysis.
921  
# Line 986 | Line 987 | way.
987  
988   \subsection{\label{introSection:production}Production}
989  
990 < \subsubsection{\label{introSec:forceCalculation}The Force Calculation}
990 > Production run is the most important step of the simulation, in
991 > which the equilibrated structure is used as a starting point and the
992 > motions of the molecules are collected for later analysis. In order
993 > to capture the macroscopic properties of the system, the molecular
994 > dynamics simulation must be performed in correct and efficient way.
995  
996 < \subsubsection{\label{introSection:integrationSchemes} Integration
997 < Schemes}
996 > The most expensive part of a molecular dynamics simulation is the
997 > calculation of non-bonded forces, such as van der Waals force and
998 > Coulombic forces \textit{etc}. For a system of $N$ particles, the
999 > complexity of the algorithm for pair-wise interactions is $O(N^2 )$,
1000 > which making large simulations prohibitive in the absence of any
1001 > computation saving techniques.
1002 >
1003 > A natural approach to avoid system size issue is to represent the
1004 > bulk behavior by a finite number of the particles. However, this
1005 > approach will suffer from the surface effect. To offset this,
1006 > \textit{Periodic boundary condition} (see Fig.~\ref{introFig:pbc})
1007 > is developed to simulate bulk properties with a relatively small
1008 > number of particles. In this method, the simulation box is
1009 > replicated throughout space to form an infinite lattice. During the
1010 > simulation, when a particle moves in the primary cell, its image in
1011 > other cells move in exactly the same direction with exactly the same
1012 > orientation. Thus, as a particle leaves the primary cell, one of its
1013 > images will enter through the opposite face.
1014 > \begin{figure}
1015 > \centering
1016 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pbc.eps}
1017 > \caption[An illustration of periodic boundary conditions]{A 2-D
1018 > illustration of periodic boundary conditions. As one particle leaves
1019 > the left of the simulation box, an image of it enters the right.}
1020 > \label{introFig:pbc}
1021 > \end{figure}
1022  
1023 + %cutoff and minimum image convention
1024 + Another important technique to improve the efficiency of force
1025 + evaluation is to apply cutoff where particles farther than a
1026 + predetermined distance, are not included in the calculation
1027 + \cite{Frenkel1996}. The use of a cutoff radius will cause a
1028 + discontinuity in the potential energy curve. Fortunately, one can
1029 + shift the potential to ensure the potential curve go smoothly to
1030 + zero at the cutoff radius. Cutoff strategy works pretty well for
1031 + Lennard-Jones interaction because of its short range nature.
1032 + However, simply truncating the electrostatic interaction with the
1033 + use of cutoff has been shown to lead to severe artifacts in
1034 + simulations. Ewald summation, in which the slowly conditionally
1035 + convergent Coulomb potential is transformed into direct and
1036 + reciprocal sums with rapid and absolute convergence, has proved to
1037 + minimize the periodicity artifacts in liquid simulations. Taking the
1038 + advantages of the fast Fourier transform (FFT) for calculating
1039 + discrete Fourier transforms, the particle mesh-based
1040 + methods\cite{Hockney1981,Shimada1993, Luty1994} are accelerated from
1041 + $O(N^{3/2})$ to $O(N logN)$. An alternative approach is \emph{fast
1042 + multipole method}\cite{Greengard1987, Greengard1994}, which treats
1043 + Coulombic interaction exactly at short range, and approximate the
1044 + potential at long range through multipolar expansion. In spite of
1045 + their wide acceptances at the molecular simulation community, these
1046 + two methods are hard to be implemented correctly and efficiently.
1047 + Instead, we use a damped and charge-neutralized Coulomb potential
1048 + method developed by Wolf and his coworkers\cite{Wolf1999}. The
1049 + shifted Coulomb potential for particle $i$ and particle $j$ at
1050 + distance $r_{rj}$ is given by:
1051 + \begin{equation}
1052 + V(r_{ij})= \frac{q_i q_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha
1053 + r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow
1054 + R_\textrm{c}}\left\{\frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha
1055 + r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}\right\}. \label{introEquation:shiftedCoulomb}
1056 + \end{equation}
1057 + where $\alpha$ is the convergence parameter. Due to the lack of
1058 + inherent periodicity and rapid convergence,this method is extremely
1059 + efficient and easy to implement.
1060 + \begin{figure}
1061 + \centering
1062 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shifted_coulomb.eps}
1063 + \caption[An illustration of shifted Coulomb potential]{An
1064 + illustration of shifted Coulomb potential.}
1065 + \label{introFigure:shiftedCoulomb}
1066 + \end{figure}
1067 +
1068 + %multiple time step
1069 +
1070   \subsection{\label{introSection:Analysis} Analysis}
1071  
1072   Recently, advanced visualization technique are widely applied to
# Line 1005 | Line 1081 | from the trajectories.
1081  
1082   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:thermodynamicsProperties}Thermodynamics Properties}
1083  
1084 + Thermodynamics properties, which can be expressed in terms of some
1085 + function of the coordinates and momenta of all particles in the
1086 + system, can be directly computed from molecular dynamics. The usual
1087 + way to measure the pressure is based on virial theorem of Clausius
1088 + which states that the virial is equal to $-3Nk_BT$. For a system
1089 + with forces between particles, the total virial, $W$, contains the
1090 + contribution from external pressure and interaction between the
1091 + particles:
1092 + \[
1093 + W =  - 3PV + \left\langle {\sum\limits_{i < j} {r{}_{ij} \cdot
1094 + f_{ij} } } \right\rangle
1095 + \]
1096 + where $f_{ij}$ is the force between particle $i$ and $j$ at a
1097 + distance $r_{ij}$. Thus, the expression for the pressure is given
1098 + by:
1099 + \begin{equation}
1100 + P = \frac{{Nk_B T}}{V} - \frac{1}{{3V}}\left\langle {\sum\limits_{i
1101 + < j} {r{}_{ij} \cdot f_{ij} } } \right\rangle
1102 + \end{equation}
1103 +
1104   \subsubsection{\label{introSection:structuralProperties}Structural Properties}
1105  
1106   Structural Properties of a simple fluid can be described by a set of
1107   distribution functions. Among these functions,\emph{pair
1108   distribution function}, also known as \emph{radial distribution
1109 < function}, are of most fundamental importance to liquid-state
1110 < theory. Pair distribution function can be gathered by Fourier
1111 < transforming raw data from a series of neutron diffraction
1112 < experiments and integrating over the surface factor \cite{Powles73}.
1113 < The experiment result can serve as a criterion to justify the
1109 > function}, is of most fundamental importance to liquid-state theory.
1110 > Pair distribution function can be gathered by Fourier transforming
1111 > raw data from a series of neutron diffraction experiments and
1112 > integrating over the surface factor \cite{Powles1973}. The
1113 > experiment result can serve as a criterion to justify the
1114   correctness of the theory. Moreover, various equilibrium
1115   thermodynamic and structural properties can also be expressed in
1116 < terms of radial distribution function \cite{allen87:csl}.
1116 > terms of radial distribution function \cite{Allen1987}.
1117  
1118   A pair distribution functions $g(r)$ gives the probability that a
1119   particle $i$ will be located at a distance $r$ from a another
# Line 1059 | Line 1155 | liquids. Another example is the calculation of the IR
1155   function is called \emph{auto correlation function}. One example of
1156   auto correlation function is velocity auto-correlation function
1157   which is directly related to transport properties of molecular
1158 < liquids. Another example is the calculation of the IR spectrum
1159 < through a Fourier transform of the dipole autocorrelation function.
1158 > liquids:
1159 > \[
1160 > D = \frac{1}{3}\int\limits_0^\infty  {\left\langle {v(t) \cdot v(0)}
1161 > \right\rangle } dt
1162 > \]
1163 > where $D$ is diffusion constant. Unlike velocity autocorrelation
1164 > function which is averaging over time origins and over all the
1165 > atoms, dipole autocorrelation are calculated for the entire system.
1166 > The dipole autocorrelation function is given by:
1167 > \[
1168 > c_{dipole}  = \left\langle {u_{tot} (t) \cdot u_{tot} (t)}
1169 > \right\rangle
1170 > \]
1171 > Here $u_{tot}$ is the net dipole of the entire system and is given
1172 > by
1173 > \[
1174 > u_{tot} (t) = \sum\limits_i {u_i (t)}
1175 > \]
1176 > In principle, many time correlation functions can be related with
1177 > Fourier transforms of the infrared, Raman, and inelastic neutron
1178 > scattering spectra of molecular liquids. In practice, one can
1179 > extract the IR spectrum from the intensity of dipole fluctuation at
1180 > each frequency using the following relationship:
1181 > \[
1182 > \hat c_{dipole} (v) = \int_{ - \infty }^\infty  {c_{dipole} (t)e^{ -
1183 > i2\pi vt} dt}
1184 > \]
1185  
1186   \section{\label{introSection:rigidBody}Dynamics of Rigid Bodies}
1187  
# Line 1070 | Line 1191 | protein-protein docking study{\cite{Gray03}}.
1191   movement of the objects in 3D gaming engine or other physics
1192   simulator is governed by the rigid body dynamics. In molecular
1193   simulation, rigid body is used to simplify the model in
1194 < protein-protein docking study{\cite{Gray03}}.
1194 > protein-protein docking study\cite{Gray2003}.
1195  
1196   It is very important to develop stable and efficient methods to
1197   integrate the equations of motion of orientational degrees of
# Line 1078 | Line 1199 | different sets of Euler angles can overcome this diffi
1199   rotational degrees of freedom. However, due to its singularity, the
1200   numerical integration of corresponding equations of motion is very
1201   inefficient and inaccurate. Although an alternative integrator using
1202 < different sets of Euler angles can overcome this difficulty\cite{},
1203 < the computational penalty and the lost of angular momentum
1204 < conservation still remain. A singularity free representation
1205 < utilizing quaternions was developed by Evans in 1977. Unfortunately,
1206 < this approach suffer from the nonseparable Hamiltonian resulted from
1207 < quaternion representation, which prevents the symplectic algorithm
1208 < to be utilized. Another different approach is to apply holonomic
1209 < constraints to the atoms belonging to the rigid body. Each atom
1210 < moves independently under the normal forces deriving from potential
1211 < energy and constraint forces which are used to guarantee the
1212 < rigidness. However, due to their iterative nature, SHAKE and Rattle
1213 < algorithm converge very slowly when the number of constraint
1214 < increases.
1202 > different sets of Euler angles can overcome this
1203 > difficulty\cite{Barojas1973}, the computational penalty and the lost
1204 > of angular momentum conservation still remain. A singularity free
1205 > representation utilizing quaternions was developed by Evans in
1206 > 1977\cite{Evans1977}. Unfortunately, this approach suffer from the
1207 > nonseparable Hamiltonian resulted from quaternion representation,
1208 > which prevents the symplectic algorithm to be utilized. Another
1209 > different approach is to apply holonomic constraints to the atoms
1210 > belonging to the rigid body. Each atom moves independently under the
1211 > normal forces deriving from potential energy and constraint forces
1212 > which are used to guarantee the rigidness. However, due to their
1213 > iterative nature, SHAKE and Rattle algorithm converge very slowly
1214 > when the number of constraint increases\cite{Ryckaert1977,
1215 > Andersen1983}.
1216  
1217   The break through in geometric literature suggests that, in order to
1218   develop a long-term integration scheme, one should preserve the
1219   symplectic structure of the flow. Introducing conjugate momentum to
1220   rotation matrix $Q$ and re-formulating Hamiltonian's equation, a
1221 < symplectic integrator, RSHAKE, was proposed to evolve the
1222 < Hamiltonian system in a constraint manifold by iteratively
1221 > symplectic integrator, RSHAKE\cite{Kol1997}, was proposed to evolve
1222 > the Hamiltonian system in a constraint manifold by iteratively
1223   satisfying the orthogonality constraint $Q_T Q = 1$. An alternative
1224 < method using quaternion representation was developed by Omelyan.
1225 < However, both of these methods are iterative and inefficient. In
1226 < this section, we will present a symplectic Lie-Poisson integrator
1227 < for rigid body developed by Dullweber and his
1228 < coworkers\cite{Dullweber1997} in depth.
1224 > method using quaternion representation was developed by
1225 > Omelyan\cite{Omelyan1998}. However, both of these methods are
1226 > iterative and inefficient. In this section, we will present a
1227 > symplectic Lie-Poisson integrator for rigid body developed by
1228 > Dullweber and his coworkers\cite{Dullweber1997} in depth.
1229  
1230   \subsection{\label{introSection:constrainedHamiltonianRB}Constrained Hamiltonian for Rigid Body}
1231   The motion of the rigid body is Hamiltonian with the Hamiltonian
# Line 1122 | Line 1244 | Q^T Q = 1$, \label{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint}
1244   where $I_{ii}$ is the diagonal element of the inertia tensor. This
1245   constrained Hamiltonian equation subjects to a holonomic constraint,
1246   \begin{equation}
1247 < Q^T Q = 1$, \label{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint}
1247 > Q^T Q = 1, \label{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint}
1248   \end{equation}
1249   which is used to ensure rotation matrix's orthogonality.
1250   Differentiating \ref{introEquation:orthogonalConstraint} and using
# Line 1135 | Line 1257 | the equations of motion,
1257   Using Equation (\ref{introEquation:motionHamiltonianCoordinate},
1258   \ref{introEquation:motionHamiltonianMomentum}), one can write down
1259   the equations of motion,
1138 \[
1139 \begin{array}{c}
1140 \frac{{dq}}{{dt}} = \frac{p}{m} \label{introEquation:RBMotionPosition}\\
1141 \frac{{dp}}{{dt}} =  - \nabla _q V(q,Q) \label{introEquation:RBMotionMomentum}\\
1142 \frac{{dQ}}{{dt}} = PJ^{ - 1}  \label{introEquation:RBMotionRotation}\\
1143 \frac{{dP}}{{dt}} =  - \nabla _Q V(q,Q) - 2Q\Lambda . \label{introEquation:RBMotionP}\\
1144 \end{array}
1145 \]
1260  
1261 + \begin{eqnarray}
1262 + \frac{{dq}}{{dt}} & = & \frac{p}{m} \label{introEquation:RBMotionPosition}\\
1263 + \frac{{dp}}{{dt}} & = & - \nabla _q V(q,Q) \label{introEquation:RBMotionMomentum}\\
1264 + \frac{{dQ}}{{dt}} & = & PJ^{ - 1}  \label{introEquation:RBMotionRotation}\\
1265 + \frac{{dP}}{{dt}} & = & - \nabla _Q V(q,Q) - 2Q\Lambda . \label{introEquation:RBMotionP}
1266 + \end{eqnarray}
1267 +
1268   In general, there are two ways to satisfy the holonomic constraints.
1269   We can use constraint force provided by lagrange multiplier on the
1270   normal manifold to keep the motion on constraint space. Or we can
1271 < simply evolve the system in constraint manifold. The two method are
1272 < proved to be equivalent. The holonomic constraint and equations of
1273 < motions define a constraint manifold for rigid body
1271 > simply evolve the system in constraint manifold. These two methods
1272 > are proved to be equivalent. The holonomic constraint and equations
1273 > of motions define a constraint manifold for rigid body
1274   \[
1275   M = \left\{ {(Q,P):Q^T Q = 1,Q^T PJ^{ - 1}  + J^{ - 1} P^T Q = 0}
1276   \right\}.
# Line 1223 | Line 1344 | operations
1344   \[
1345   \hat vu = v \times u
1346   \]
1226
1347   Using \ref{introEqaution:RBMotionPI}, one can construct a skew
1348   matrix,
1349   \begin{equation}
1350 < (\mathop \Pi \limits^ \bullet   - \mathop \Pi \limits^ \bullet  ^T
1350 > (\mathop \Pi \limits^ \bullet   - \mathop \Pi \limits^ {\bullet  ^T}
1351   ){\rm{ }} = {\rm{ }}(\Pi  - \Pi ^T ){\rm{ }}(J^{ - 1} \Pi  + \Pi J^{
1352   - 1} ) + \sum\limits_i {[Q^T F_i (r,Q)X_i^T  - X_i F_i (r,Q)^T Q]} -
1353   (\Lambda  - \Lambda ^T ) . \label{introEquation:skewMatrixPI}
# Line 1236 | Line 1356 | not be avoided in other methods\cite{}.
1356   \ref{introEquation:skewMatrixPI} is zero, which implies the Lagrange
1357   multiplier $\Lambda$ is absent from the equations of motion. This
1358   unique property eliminate the requirement of iterations which can
1359 < not be avoided in other methods\cite{}.
1359 > not be avoided in other methods\cite{Kol1997, Omelyan1998}.
1360  
1361   Applying hat-map isomorphism, we obtain the equation of motion for
1362   angular momentum on body frame
# Line 1256 | Line 1376 | first term of \ref{ introEquation:bodyAngularMotion}).
1376  
1377   If there is not external forces exerted on the rigid body, the only
1378   contribution to the rotational is from the kinetic potential (the
1379 < first term of \ref{ introEquation:bodyAngularMotion}). The free
1380 < rigid body is an example of Lie-Poisson system with Hamiltonian
1261 < function
1379 > first term of \ref{introEquation:bodyAngularMotion}). The free rigid
1380 > body is an example of Lie-Poisson system with Hamiltonian function
1381   \begin{equation}
1382   T^r (\pi ) = T_1 ^r (\pi _1 ) + T_2^r (\pi _2 ) + T_3^r (\pi _3 )
1383   \label{introEquation:rotationalKineticRB}
# Line 1362 | Line 1481 | kinetic energy are listed in the below table,
1481   \]
1482   The equations of motion corresponding to potential energy and
1483   kinetic energy are listed in the below table,
1484 + \begin{table}
1485 + \caption{Equations of motion due to Potential and Kinetic Energies}
1486   \begin{center}
1487   \begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
1488    \hline
# Line 1374 | Line 1495 | A second-order symplectic method is now obtained by th
1495    \hline
1496   \end{tabular}
1497   \end{center}
1498 < A second-order symplectic method is now obtained by the composition
1499 < of the flow maps,
1498 > \end{table}
1499 > A second-order symplectic method is now obtained by the
1500 > composition of the flow maps,
1501   \[
1502   \varphi _{\Delta t}  = \varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}  \circ \varphi
1503   _{\Delta t,T}  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}.
# Line 1500 | Line 1622 | Operator. Below are some important properties of Lapla
1622   \]
1623   where  $p$ is real and  $L$ is called the Laplace Transform
1624   Operator. Below are some important properties of Laplace transform
1625 < \begin{equation}
1626 < \begin{array}{c}
1627 < L(x + y) = L(x) + L(y) \\
1628 < L(ax) = aL(x) \\
1629 < L(\dot x) = pL(x) - px(0) \\
1630 < L(\ddot x) = p^2 L(x) - px(0) - \dot x(0) \\
1631 < L\left( {\int_0^t {g(t - \tau )h(\tau )d\tau } } \right) = G(p)H(p) \\
1632 < \end{array}
1511 < \end{equation}
1625 >
1626 > \begin{eqnarray*}
1627 > L(x + y)  & = & L(x) + L(y) \\
1628 > L(ax)     & = & aL(x) \\
1629 > L(\dot x) & = & pL(x) - px(0) \\
1630 > L(\ddot x)& = & p^2 L(x) - px(0) - \dot x(0) \\
1631 > L\left( {\int_0^t {g(t - \tau )h(\tau )d\tau } } \right)& = & G(p)H(p) \\
1632 > \end{eqnarray*}
1633  
1634 +
1635   Applying Laplace transform to the bath coordinates, we obtain
1636 < \[
1637 < \begin{array}{c}
1638 < p^2 L(x_\alpha  ) - px_\alpha  (0) - \dot x_\alpha  (0) =  - \omega _\alpha ^2 L(x_\alpha  ) + \frac{{g_\alpha  }}{{\omega _\alpha  }}L(x) \\
1639 < L(x_\alpha  ) = \frac{{\frac{{g_\alpha  }}{{\omega _\alpha  }}L(x) + px_\alpha  (0) + \dot x_\alpha  (0)}}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }} \\
1640 < \end{array}
1519 < \]
1636 > \begin{eqnarray*}
1637 > p^2 L(x_\alpha  ) - px_\alpha  (0) - \dot x_\alpha  (0) & = & - \omega _\alpha ^2 L(x_\alpha  ) + \frac{{g_\alpha  }}{{\omega _\alpha  }}L(x) \\
1638 > L(x_\alpha  ) & = & \frac{{\frac{{g_\alpha  }}{{\omega _\alpha  }}L(x) + px_\alpha  (0) + \dot x_\alpha  (0)}}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }} \\
1639 > \end{eqnarray*}
1640 >
1641   By the same way, the system coordinates become
1642 < \[
1643 < \begin{array}{c}
1644 < mL(\ddot x) =  - \frac{1}{p}\frac{{\partial W(x)}}{{\partial x}} \\
1645 <  - \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left\{ { - \frac{{g_\alpha ^2 }}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha ^2 }}\frac{p}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }}pL(x) - \frac{p}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }}g_\alpha  x_\alpha  (0) - \frac{1}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }}g_\alpha  \dot x_\alpha  (0)} \right\}}  \\
1525 < \end{array}
1526 < \]
1642 > \begin{eqnarray*}
1643 > mL(\ddot x) & = & - \frac{1}{p}\frac{{\partial W(x)}}{{\partial x}} \\
1644 >  & & \mbox{} - \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left\{ { - \frac{{g_\alpha ^2 }}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha ^2 }}\frac{p}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }}pL(x) - \frac{p}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }}g_\alpha  x_\alpha  (0) - \frac{1}{{p^2  + \omega _\alpha ^2 }}g_\alpha  \dot x_\alpha  (0)} \right\}}  \\
1645 > \end{eqnarray*}
1646  
1647   With the help of some relatively important inverse Laplace
1648   transformations:
# Line 1535 | Line 1654 | transformations:
1654   \end{array}
1655   \]
1656   , we obtain
1657 < \begin{align}
1658 < m\ddot x &=  - \frac{{\partial W(x)}}{{\partial x}} -
1657 > \begin{eqnarray*}
1658 > m\ddot x & =  & - \frac{{\partial W(x)}}{{\partial x}} -
1659   \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left\{ {\left( { - \frac{{g_\alpha ^2
1660   }}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha ^2 }}} \right)\int_0^t {\cos (\omega
1661 < _\alpha  t)\dot x(t - \tau )d\tau  - \left[ {g_\alpha  x_\alpha  (0)
1662 < - \frac{{g_\alpha  }}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha  }}} \right]\cos
1663 < (\omega _\alpha  t) - \frac{{g_\alpha  \dot x_\alpha  (0)}}{{\omega
1664 < _\alpha  }}\sin (\omega _\alpha  t)} } \right\}}
1665 < %
1666 < &= - \frac{{\partial W(x)}}{{\partial x}} - \int_0^t
1661 > _\alpha  t)\dot x(t - \tau )d\tau } } \right\}}  \\
1662 > & & + \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left\{ {\left[ {g_\alpha
1663 > x_\alpha (0) - \frac{{g_\alpha  }}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha  }}}
1664 > \right]\cos (\omega _\alpha  t) + \frac{{g_\alpha  \dot x_\alpha
1665 > (0)}}{{\omega _\alpha  }}\sin (\omega _\alpha  t)} \right\}}
1666 > \end{eqnarray*}
1667 > \begin{eqnarray*}
1668 > m\ddot x & = & - \frac{{\partial W(x)}}{{\partial x}} - \int_0^t
1669   {\sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left( { - \frac{{g_\alpha ^2
1670   }}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha ^2 }}} \right)\cos (\omega _\alpha
1671 < t)\dot x(t - \tau )d} \tau }  + \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left\{
1672 < {\left[ {g_\alpha  x_\alpha  (0) - \frac{{g_\alpha  }}{{m_\alpha
1673 < \omega _\alpha  }}} \right]\cos (\omega _\alpha  t) +
1674 < \frac{{g_\alpha  \dot x_\alpha  (0)}}{{\omega _\alpha  }}\sin
1675 < (\omega _\alpha  t)} \right\}}
1676 < \end{align}
1556 <
1671 > t)\dot x(t - \tau )d} \tau }  \\
1672 > & & + \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left\{ {\left[ {g_\alpha
1673 > x_\alpha (0) - \frac{{g_\alpha }}{{m_\alpha \omega _\alpha  }}}
1674 > \right]\cos (\omega _\alpha  t) + \frac{{g_\alpha  \dot x_\alpha
1675 > (0)}}{{\omega _\alpha  }}\sin (\omega _\alpha  t)} \right\}}
1676 > \end{eqnarray*}
1677   Introducing a \emph{dynamic friction kernel}
1678   \begin{equation}
1679   \xi (t) = \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {\left( { - \frac{{g_\alpha ^2
# Line 1647 | Line 1767 | And since the $q$ coordinates are harmonic oscillators
1767   R(t) = \sum\limits_{\alpha  = 1}^N {g_\alpha  q_\alpha  (t)}.
1768   \]
1769   And since the $q$ coordinates are harmonic oscillators,
1770 < \[
1771 < \begin{array}{c}
1772 < \left\langle {q_\alpha ^2 } \right\rangle  = \frac{{kT}}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha ^2 }} \\
1773 < \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\alpha  (0)} \right\rangle  = \left\langle {q_\alpha ^2 (0)} \right\rangle \cos (\omega _\alpha  t) \\
1774 < \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\beta  (0)} \right\rangle  = \delta _{\alpha \beta } \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\alpha  (0)} \right\rangle  \\
1775 < \left\langle {R(t)R(0)} \right\rangle  = \sum\limits_\alpha  {\sum\limits_\beta  {g_\alpha  g_\beta  \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\beta  (0)} \right\rangle } }  \\
1776 <  = \sum\limits_\alpha  {g_\alpha ^2 \left\langle {q_\alpha ^2 (0)} \right\rangle \cos (\omega _\alpha  t)}  \\
1777 <  = kT\xi (t) \\
1778 < \end{array}
1779 < \]
1770 >
1771 > \begin{eqnarray*}
1772 > \left\langle {q_\alpha ^2 } \right\rangle  & = & \frac{{kT}}{{m_\alpha  \omega _\alpha ^2 }} \\
1773 > \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\alpha  (0)} \right\rangle & = & \left\langle {q_\alpha ^2 (0)} \right\rangle \cos (\omega _\alpha  t) \\
1774 > \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\beta  (0)} \right\rangle & = &\delta _{\alpha \beta } \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\alpha  (0)} \right\rangle  \\
1775 > \left\langle {R(t)R(0)} \right\rangle & = & \sum\limits_\alpha  {\sum\limits_\beta  {g_\alpha  g_\beta  \left\langle {q_\alpha  (t)q_\beta  (0)} \right\rangle } }  \\
1776 >  & = &\sum\limits_\alpha  {g_\alpha ^2 \left\langle {q_\alpha ^2 (0)} \right\rangle \cos (\omega _\alpha  t)}  \\
1777 >  & = &kT\xi (t) \\
1778 > \end{eqnarray*}
1779 >
1780   Thus, we recover the \emph{second fluctuation dissipation theorem}
1781   \begin{equation}
1782   \xi (t) = \left\langle {R(t)R(0)} \right\rangle
# Line 1671 | Line 1791 | Equation, \zeta can be taken as a scalar. In general,
1791   when the system become more and more complicate. Instead, various
1792   approaches based on hydrodynamics have been developed to calculate
1793   the friction coefficients. The friction effect is isotropic in
1794 < Equation, \zeta can be taken as a scalar. In general, friction
1795 < tensor \Xi is a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
1794 > Equation, $\zeta$ can be taken as a scalar. In general, friction
1795 > tensor $\Xi$ is a $6\times 6$ matrix given by
1796   \[
1797   \Xi  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1798     {\Xi _{}^{tt} } & {\Xi _{}^{rt} }  \\
# Line 1728 | Line 1848 | coordinates by
1848   hydrodynamics theory, because their properties can be calculated
1849   exactly. In 1936, Perrin extended Stokes's law to general ellipsoid,
1850   also called a triaxial ellipsoid, which is given in Cartesian
1851 < coordinates by
1851 > coordinates by\cite{Perrin1934, Perrin1936}
1852   \[
1853   \frac{{x^2 }}{{a^2 }} + \frac{{y^2 }}{{b^2 }} + \frac{{z^2 }}{{c^2
1854   }} = 1
# Line 1772 | Line 1892 | unique\cite{Wegener79} as well as the intrinsic coupli
1892   hydrodynamic properties of rigid bodies. However, since the mapping
1893   from all possible ellipsoidal space, $r$-space, to all possible
1894   combination of rotational diffusion coefficients, $D$-space is not
1895 < unique\cite{Wegener79} as well as the intrinsic coupling between
1896 < translational and rotational motion of rigid body\cite{}, general
1897 < ellipsoid is not always suitable for modeling arbitrarily shaped
1898 < rigid molecule. A number of studies have been devoted to determine
1899 < the friction tensor for irregularly shaped rigid bodies using more
1900 < advanced method\cite{} where the molecule of interest was modeled by
1901 < combinations of spheres(beads)\cite{} and the hydrodynamics
1902 < properties of the molecule can be calculated using the hydrodynamic
1903 < interaction tensor. Let us consider a rigid assembly of $N$ beads
1904 < immersed in a continuous medium. Due to hydrodynamics interaction,
1905 < the ``net'' velocity of $i$th bead, $v'_i$ is different than its
1906 < unperturbed velocity $v_i$,
1895 > unique\cite{Wegener1979} as well as the intrinsic coupling between
1896 > translational and rotational motion of rigid body, general ellipsoid
1897 > is not always suitable for modeling arbitrarily shaped rigid
1898 > molecule. A number of studies have been devoted to determine the
1899 > friction tensor for irregularly shaped rigid bodies using more
1900 > advanced method where the molecule of interest was modeled by
1901 > combinations of spheres(beads)\cite{Carrasco1999} and the
1902 > hydrodynamics properties of the molecule can be calculated using the
1903 > hydrodynamic interaction tensor. Let us consider a rigid assembly of
1904 > $N$ beads immersed in a continuous medium. Due to hydrodynamics
1905 > interaction, the ``net'' velocity of $i$th bead, $v'_i$ is different
1906 > than its unperturbed velocity $v_i$,
1907   \[
1908   v'_i  = v_i  - \sum\limits_{j \ne i} {T_{ij} F_j }
1909   \]
# Line 1804 | Line 1924 | introduced by Rotne and Prager\cite{} and improved by
1924   \end{equation}
1925   Here $R_{ij}$ is the distance vector between bead $i$ and bead $j$.
1926   A second order expression for element of different size was
1927 < introduced by Rotne and Prager\cite{} and improved by Garc\'{i}a de
1928 < la Torre and Bloomfield,
1927 > introduced by Rotne and Prager\cite{Rotne1969} and improved by
1928 > Garc\'{i}a de la Torre and Bloomfield\cite{Torre1977},
1929   \begin{equation}
1930   T_{ij}  = \frac{1}{{8\pi \eta R_{ij} }}\left[ {\left( {I +
1931   \frac{{R_{ij} R_{ij}^T }}{{R_{ij}^2 }}} \right) + R\frac{{\sigma
# Line 1891 | Line 2011 | obtain the resistance tensor at $P$ by
2011   \begin{array}{l}
2012   \Xi _P^{tt}  = \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
2013   \Xi _P^{tr}  = \Xi _P^{rt}  = \Xi _O^{tr}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt}  \\
2014 < \Xi _P^{rr}  = \Xi _O^{rr}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt} U_{OP}  + \Xi _O^{tr} U_{OP}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tr} ^{^T }  \\
2014 > \Xi _P^{rr}  = \Xi _O^{rr}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{tt} U_{OP}  + \Xi _O^{tr} U_{OP}  - U_{OP} \Xi _O^{{tr} ^{^T }}  \\
2015   \end{array}
2016   \label{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}
2017   \end{equation}
# Line 1906 | Line 2026 | the position of center of resistance,
2026   Using Equations \ref{introEquation:definitionCR} and
2027   \ref{introEquation:resistanceTensorTransformation}, one can locate
2028   the position of center of resistance,
2029 < \[
2030 < \left( \begin{array}{l}
2029 > \begin{eqnarray*}
2030 > \left( \begin{array}{l}
2031   x_{OR}  \\
2032   y_{OR}  \\
2033   z_{OR}  \\
2034 < \end{array} \right) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
2034 > \end{array} \right) & = &\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
2035     {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} }  \\
2036     { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xy} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{zz}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} }  \\
2037     { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xz} } & { - (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yz} } & {(\Xi _O^{rr} )_{xx}  + (\Xi _O^{rr} )_{yy} }  \\
2038 < \end{array}} \right)^{ - 1} \left( \begin{array}{l}
2038 > \end{array}} \right)^{ - 1}  \\
2039 >  & & \left( \begin{array}{l}
2040   (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yz}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zy}  \\
2041   (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{zx}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xz}  \\
2042   (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{xy}  - (\Xi _O^{tr} )_{yx}  \\
2043 < \end{array} \right).
2044 < \]
2043 > \end{array} \right) \\
2044 > \end{eqnarray*}
2045 >
2046 >
2047 >
2048   where $x_OR$, $y_OR$, $z_OR$ are the components of the vector
2049   joining center of resistance $R$ and origin $O$.

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines