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

Comparing trunk/tengDissertation/Methodology.tex (file contents):
Revision 2798 by tim, Tue Jun 6 14:12:59 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2839 by tim, Fri Jun 9 02:41:58 2006 UTC

# Line 139 | Line 139 | in Fig.~\ref{timestep}.
139   average 7\% increase in computation time using the DLM method in
140   place of quaternions. This cost is more than justified when
141   comparing the energy conservation of the two methods as illustrated
142 < in Fig.~\ref{timestep}.
142 > in Fig.~\ref{methodFig:timestep}.
143  
144   \begin{figure}
145   \centering
# Line 150 | Line 150 | from the true energy baseline for clarity.} \label{tim
150   increasing time step. For each time step, the dotted line is total
151   energy using the DLM integrator, and the solid line comes from the
152   quaternion integrator. The larger time step plots are shifted up
153 < from the true energy baseline for clarity.} \label{timestep}
153 > from the true energy baseline for clarity.}
154 > \label{methodFig:timestep}
155   \end{figure}
156  
157 < In Fig.~\ref{timestep}, the resulting energy drift at various time
158 < steps for both the DLM and quaternion integration schemes is
159 < compared. All of the 1000 molecule water simulations started with
160 < the same configuration, and the only difference was the method for
161 < handling rotational motion. At time steps of 0.1 and 0.5 fs, both
162 < methods for propagating molecule rotation conserve energy fairly
163 < well, with the quaternion method showing a slight energy drift over
164 < time in the 0.5 fs time step simulation. At time steps of 1 and 2
165 < fs, the energy conservation benefits of the DLM method are clearly
166 < demonstrated. Thus, while maintaining the same degree of energy
167 < conservation, one can take considerably longer time steps, leading
168 < to an overall reduction in computation time.
157 > In Fig.~\ref{methodFig:timestep}, the resulting energy drift at
158 > various time steps for both the DLM and quaternion integration
159 > schemes is compared. All of the 1000 molecule water simulations
160 > started with the same configuration, and the only difference was the
161 > method for handling rotational motion. At time steps of 0.1 and 0.5
162 > fs, both methods for propagating molecule rotation conserve energy
163 > fairly well, with the quaternion method showing a slight energy
164 > drift over time in the 0.5 fs time step simulation. At time steps of
165 > 1 and 2 fs, the energy conservation benefits of the DLM method are
166 > clearly demonstrated. Thus, while maintaining the same degree of
167 > energy conservation, one can take considerably longer time steps,
168 > leading to an overall reduction in computation time.
169  
170   \subsection{\label{methodSection:NVT}Nos\'{e}-Hoover Thermostatting}
171  
172 < The Nos\'e-Hoover equations of motion are given by\cite{Hoover85}
172 > The Nos\'e-Hoover equations of motion are given by\cite{Hoover1985}
173   \begin{eqnarray}
174   \dot{{\bf r}} & = & {\bf v}, \\
175   \dot{{\bf v}} & = & \frac{{\bf f}}{m} - \chi {\bf v} ,\\
# Line 284 | Line 285 | Helmholtz free energy,\cite{melchionna93}
285  
286   The Nos\'e-Hoover algorithm is known to conserve a Hamiltonian for
287   the extended system that is, to within a constant, identical to the
288 < Helmholtz free energy,\cite{melchionna93}
288 > Helmholtz free energy,\cite{Melchionna1993}
289   \begin{equation}
290   H_{\mathrm{NVT}} = V + K + f k_B T_{\mathrm{target}} \left(
291   \frac{\tau_{T}^2 \chi^2(t)}{2} + \int_{0}^{t} \chi(t^\prime)
# Line 295 | Line 296 | Bond constraints are applied at the end of both the {\
296   last column of the {\tt .stat} file to allow checks on the quality
297   of the integration.
298  
298 Bond constraints are applied at the end of both the {\tt moveA} and
299 {\tt moveB} portions of the algorithm.  Details on the constraint
300 algorithms are given in section \ref{oopseSec:rattle}.
301
299   \subsection{\label{methodSection:NPTi}Constant-pressure integration with
300   isotropic box deformations (NPTi)}
301  
302   To carry out isobaric-isothermal ensemble calculations {\sc oopse}
303   implements the Melchionna modifications to the
304 < Nos\'e-Hoover-Andersen equations of motion,\cite{melchionna93}
304 > Nos\'e-Hoover-Andersen equations of motion,\cite{Melchionna1993}
305  
306   \begin{eqnarray}
307   \dot{{\bf r}} & = & {\bf v} + \eta \left( {\bf r} - {\bf R}_0 \right), \\
# Line 477 | Line 474 | Bond constraints are applied at the end of both the {\
474   \end{equation}
475  
476   Bond constraints are applied at the end of both the {\tt moveA} and
477 < {\tt moveB} portions of the algorithm.  Details on the constraint
481 < algorithms are given in section \ref{oopseSec:rattle}.
477 > {\tt moveB} portions of the algorithm.
478  
479   \subsection{\label{methodSection:NPTf}Constant-pressure integration with a
480   flexible box (NPTf)}
# Line 611 | Line 607 | assume non-orthorhombic geometries.
607  
608   \subsection{\label{methodSection:otherSpecialEnsembles}Other Special Ensembles}
609  
610 < \subsubsection{\label{methodSection:NPAT}NPAT Ensemble}
610 > \subsubsection{\label{methodSection:NPAT}\textbf{NPAT Ensemble}}
611  
612   A comprehensive understanding of structure¨Cfunction relations of
613   biological membrane system ultimately relies on structure and
# Line 623 | Line 619 | standard NPT ensemble with a different pressure contro
619   standard NPT ensemble with a different pressure control strategy
620  
621   \begin{equation}
622 < \.{\overleftrightarrow{{\eta _{\alpha \beta}}}}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
622 > \dot {\overleftrightarrow{\eta}} _{\alpha \beta}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
623                    \frac{{V(P_{\alpha \beta }  - P_{{\rm{target}}} )}}{{\tau_{\rm{B}}^{\rm{2}} fk_B T_{{\rm{target}}} }}
624 <                  & \mbox{if \[ \alpha = \beta  = z)$}\\
624 >                  & \mbox{if $ \alpha = \beta  = z$}\\
625                    0 & \mbox{otherwise}\\
626             \end{array}
627      \right.
# Line 634 | Line 630 | described for the NPTi integrator.
630   Note that the iterative schemes for NPAT are identical to those
631   described for the NPTi integrator.
632  
633 < \subsubsection{\label{methodSection:NPrT}NP$\gamma$T Ensemble}
633 > \subsubsection{\label{methodSection:NPrT}\textbf{NP$\gamma$T Ensemble}}
634  
635   Theoretically, the surface tension $\gamma$ of a stress free
636   membrane system should be zero since its surface free energy $G$ is
# Line 649 | Line 645 | $\eta$, in $NP\gamma T$ is
645   pressure. The equation of motion for cell size control tensor,
646   $\eta$, in $NP\gamma T$ is
647   \begin{equation}
648 < \.{\overleftrightarrow{{\eta _{\alpha \beta}}}}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
648 > \dot {\overleftrightarrow{\eta}} _{\alpha \beta}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
649      - A_{xy} (\gamma _\alpha   - \gamma _{{\rm{target}}} ) & \mbox{$\alpha  = \beta  = x$ or $\alpha  = \beta  = y$}\\
650      \frac{{V(P_{\alpha \beta }  - P_{{\rm{target}}} )}}{{\tau _{\rm{B}}^{\rm{2}} fk_B T_{{\rm{target}}}}} & \mbox{$\alpha  = \beta  = z$} \\
651      0 & \mbox{$\alpha  \ne \beta$} \\
652 +       \end{array}
653      \right.
654   \end{equation}
655   where $ \gamma _{{\rm{target}}}$ is the external surface tension and
656   the instantaneous surface tensor $\gamma _\alpha$ is given by
657   \begin{equation}
658 < \gamma _\alpha   =  - h_z
659 < (\mathord{\buildrel{\lower3pt\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\leftrightarrow$}}
663 < \over P} _{\alpha \alpha }  - P_{{\rm{target}}} )
658 > \gamma _\alpha   =  - h_z( \overleftrightarrow{P} _{\alpha \alpha }
659 > - P_{{\rm{target}}} )
660   \label{methodEquation:instantaneousSurfaceTensor}
661   \end{equation}
662  
# Line 672 | Line 668 | $\gamma$ is set to zero.
668   integrator is a special case of $NP\gamma T$ if the surface tension
669   $\gamma$ is set to zero.
670  
671 < %\section{\label{methodSection:constraintMethod}Constraint Method}
671 > \section{\label{methodSection:zcons}Z-Constraint Method}
672  
673 < %\subsection{\label{methodSection:bondConstraint}Bond Constraint for Rigid Body}
673 > Based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, a force
674 > auto-correlation method was developed by Roux and Karplus to
675 > investigate the dynamics of ions inside ion channels\cite{Roux1991}.
676 > The time-dependent friction coefficient can be calculated from the
677 > deviation of the instantaneous force from its mean force.
678 > \begin{equation}
679 > \xi(z,t)=\langle\delta F(z,t)\delta F(z,0)\rangle/k_{B}T,
680 > \end{equation}
681 > where%
682 > \begin{equation}
683 > \delta F(z,t)=F(z,t)-\langle F(z,t)\rangle.
684 > \end{equation}
685  
686 < %\subsection{\label{methodSection:zcons}Z-constraint Method}
686 > If the time-dependent friction decays rapidly, the static friction
687 > coefficient can be approximated by
688 > \begin{equation}
689 > \xi_{\text{static}}(z)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\langle\delta F(z,t)\delta
690 > F(z,0)\rangle dt.
691 > \end{equation}
692 > Allowing diffusion constant to then be calculated through the
693 > Einstein relation:\cite{Marrink1994}
694 > \begin{equation}
695 > D(z)=\frac{k_{B}T}{\xi_{\text{static}}(z)}=\frac{(k_{B}T)^{2}}{\int_{0}^{\infty
696 > }\langle\delta F(z,t)\delta F(z,0)\rangle dt}.%
697 > \end{equation}
698  
699 < \section{\label{methodSection:langevin}Integrators for Langevin Dynamics of Rigid Bodies}
699 > The Z-Constraint method, which fixes the z coordinates of the
700 > molecules with respect to the center of the mass of the system, has
701 > been a method suggested to obtain the forces required for the force
702 > auto-correlation calculation.\cite{Marrink1994} However, simply
703 > resetting the coordinate will move the center of the mass of the
704 > whole system. To avoid this problem, we reset the forces of
705 > z-constrained molecules as well as subtract the total constraint
706 > forces from the rest of the system after the force calculation at
707 > each time step instead of resetting the coordinate.
708  
709 < \subsection{\label{methodSection:temperature}Temperature Control}
709 > After the force calculation, define $G_\alpha$ as
710 > \begin{equation}
711 > G_{\alpha} = \sum_i F_{\alpha i}, \label{oopseEq:zc1}
712 > \end{equation}
713 > where $F_{\alpha i}$ is the force in the z direction of atom $i$ in
714 > z-constrained molecule $\alpha$. The forces of the z constrained
715 > molecule are then set to:
716 > \begin{equation}
717 > F_{\alpha i} = F_{\alpha i} -
718 >    \frac{m_{\alpha i} G_{\alpha}}{\sum_i m_{\alpha i}}.
719 > \end{equation}
720 > Here, $m_{\alpha i}$ is the mass of atom $i$ in the z-constrained
721 > molecule. Having rescaled the forces, the velocities must also be
722 > rescaled to subtract out any center of mass velocity in the z
723 > direction.
724 > \begin{equation}
725 > v_{\alpha i} = v_{\alpha i} -
726 >    \frac{\sum_i m_{\alpha i} v_{\alpha i}}{\sum_i m_{\alpha i}},
727 > \end{equation}
728 > where $v_{\alpha i}$ is the velocity of atom $i$ in the z direction.
729 > Lastly, all of the accumulated z constrained forces must be
730 > subtracted from the system to keep the system center of mass from
731 > drifting.
732 > \begin{equation}
733 > F_{\beta i} = F_{\beta i} - \frac{m_{\beta i} \sum_{\alpha}
734 > G_{\alpha}}
735 >    {\sum_{\beta}\sum_i m_{\beta i}},
736 > \end{equation}
737 > where $\beta$ are all of the unconstrained molecules in the system.
738 > Similarly, the velocities of the unconstrained molecules must also
739 > be scaled.
740 > \begin{equation}
741 > v_{\beta i} = v_{\beta i} + \sum_{\alpha}
742 >    \frac{\sum_i m_{\alpha i} v_{\alpha i}}{\sum_i m_{\alpha i}}.
743 > \end{equation}
744  
745 < \subsection{\label{methodSection:pressureControl}Pressure Control}
745 > At the very beginning of the simulation, the molecules may not be at
746 > their constrained positions. To move a z-constrained molecule to its
747 > specified position, a simple harmonic potential is used
748 > \begin{equation}
749 > U(t)=\frac{1}{2}k_{\text{Harmonic}}(z(t)-z_{\text{cons}})^{2},%
750 > \end{equation}
751 > where $k_{\text{Harmonic}}$ is the harmonic force constant, $z(t)$
752 > is the current $z$ coordinate of the center of mass of the
753 > constrained molecule, and $z_{\text{cons}}$ is the constrained
754 > position. The harmonic force operating on the z-constrained molecule
755 > at time $t$ can be calculated by
756 > \begin{equation}
757 > F_{z_{\text{Harmonic}}}(t)=-\frac{\partial U(t)}{\partial z(t)}=
758 >    -k_{\text{Harmonic}}(z(t)-z_{\text{cons}}).
759 > \end{equation}
760  
687 \section{\label{methodSection:hydrodynamics}Hydrodynamics}
761  
762 < %\section{\label{methodSection:coarseGrained}Coarse-Grained Modeling}
762 > \section{\label{methodSection:langevin}Integrators for Langevin Dynamics of Rigid Bodies}
763  
764 < %\section{\label{methodSection:moleculeScale}Molecular-Scale Modeling}
764 > %\subsection{\label{methodSection:temperature}Temperature Control}
765 >
766 > %\subsection{\label{methodSection:pressureControl}Pressure Control}
767 >
768 > %\section{\label{methodSection:hydrodynamics}Hydrodynamics}
769 >
770 > %applications of langevin dynamics
771 > As an excellent alternative to newtonian dynamics, Langevin
772 > dynamics, which mimics a simple heat bath with stochastic and
773 > dissipative forces, has been applied in a variety of studies. The
774 > stochastic treatment of the solvent enables us to carry out
775 > substantially longer time simulation. Implicit solvent Langevin
776 > dynamics simulation of met-enkephalin not only outperforms explicit
777 > solvent simulation on computation efficiency, but also agrees very
778 > well with explicit solvent simulation on dynamics
779 > properties\cite{Shen2002}. Recently, applying Langevin dynamics with
780 > UNRES model, Liow and his coworkers suggest that protein folding
781 > pathways can be possibly exploited within a reasonable amount of
782 > time\cite{Liwo2005}. The stochastic nature of the Langevin dynamics
783 > also enhances the sampling of the system and increases the
784 > probability of crossing energy barrier\cite{Banerjee2004, Cui2003}.
785 > Combining Langevin dynamics with Kramers's theory, Klimov and
786 > Thirumalai identified the free-energy barrier by studying the
787 > viscosity dependence of the protein folding rates\cite{Klimov1997}.
788 > In order to account for solvent induced interactions missing from
789 > implicit solvent model, Kaya incorporated desolvation free energy
790 > barrier into implicit coarse-grained solvent model in protein
791 > folding/unfolding study and discovered a higher free energy barrier
792 > between the native and denatured states. Because of its stability
793 > against noise, Langevin dynamics is very suitable for studying
794 > remagnetization processes in various
795 > systems\cite{Palacios1998,Berkov2002,Denisov2003}. For instance, the
796 > oscillation power spectrum of nanoparticles from Langevin dynamics
797 > simulation has the same peak frequencies for different wave
798 > vectors,which recovers the property of magnetic excitations in small
799 > finite structures\cite{Berkov2005a}. In an attempt to reduce the
800 > computational cost of simulation, multiple time stepping (MTS)
801 > methods have been introduced and have been of great interest to
802 > macromolecule and protein community\cite{Tuckerman1992}. Relying on
803 > the observation that forces between distant atoms generally
804 > demonstrate slower fluctuations than forces between close atoms, MTS
805 > method are generally implemented by evaluating the slowly
806 > fluctuating forces less frequently than the fast ones.
807 > Unfortunately, nonlinear instability resulting from increasing
808 > timestep in MTS simulation have became a critical obstruction
809 > preventing the long time simulation. Due to the coupling to the heat
810 > bath, Langevin dynamics has been shown to be able to damp out the
811 > resonance artifact more efficiently\cite{Sandu1999}.
812 >
813 > %review rigid body dynamics
814 > Rigid bodies are frequently involved in the modeling of different
815 > areas, from engineering, physics, to chemistry. For example,
816 > missiles and vehicle are usually modeled by rigid bodies.  The
817 > movement of the objects in 3D gaming engine or other physics
818 > simulator is governed by the rigid body dynamics. In molecular
819 > simulation, rigid body is used to simplify the model in
820 > protein-protein docking study\cite{Gray2003}.
821 >
822 > It is very important to develop stable and efficient methods to
823 > integrate the equations of motion of orientational degrees of
824 > freedom. Euler angles are the nature choice to describe the
825 > rotational degrees of freedom. However, due to its singularity, the
826 > numerical integration of corresponding equations of motion is very
827 > inefficient and inaccurate. Although an alternative integrator using
828 > different sets of Euler angles can overcome this
829 > difficulty\cite{Ryckaert1977, Andersen1983}, the computational
830 > penalty and the lost of angular momentum conservation still remain.
831 > In 1977, a singularity free representation utilizing quaternions was
832 > developed by Evans\cite{Evans1977}. Unfortunately, this approach
833 > suffer from the nonseparable Hamiltonian resulted from quaternion
834 > representation, which prevents the symplectic algorithm to be
835 > utilized. Another different approach is to apply holonomic
836 > constraints to the atoms belonging to the rigid
837 > body\cite{Barojas1973}. Each atom moves independently under the
838 > normal forces deriving from potential energy and constraint forces
839 > which are used to guarantee the rigidness. However, due to their
840 > iterative nature, SHAKE and Rattle algorithm converge very slowly
841 > when the number of constraint increases.
842 >
843 > The break through in geometric literature suggests that, in order to
844 > develop a long-term integration scheme, one should preserve the
845 > geometric structure of the flow. Matubayasi and Nakahara developed a
846 > time-reversible integrator for rigid bodies in quaternion
847 > representation. Although it is not symplectic, this integrator still
848 > demonstrates a better long-time energy conservation than traditional
849 > methods because of the time-reversible nature. Extending
850 > Trotter-Suzuki to general system with a flat phase space, Miller and
851 > his colleagues devised an novel symplectic, time-reversible and
852 > volume-preserving integrator in quaternion representation. However,
853 > all of the integrators in quaternion representation suffer from the
854 > computational penalty of constructing a rotation matrix from
855 > quaternions to evolve coordinates and velocities at every time step.
856 > An alternative integration scheme utilizing rotation matrix directly
857 > is RSHAKE\cite{Kol1997}, in which a conjugate momentum to rotation
858 > matrix is introduced to re-formulate the Hamiltonian's equation and
859 > the Hamiltonian is evolved in a constraint manifold by iteratively
860 > satisfying the orthogonality constraint. However, RSHAKE is
861 > inefficient because of the iterative procedure. An extremely
862 > efficient integration scheme in rotation matrix representation,
863 > which also preserves the same structural properties of the
864 > Hamiltonian flow as Miller's integrator, is proposed by Dullweber,
865 > Leimkuhler and McLachlan (DLM)\cite{Dullweber1997}.
866 >
867 > %review langevin/browninan dynamics for arbitrarily shaped rigid body
868 > Combining Langevin or Brownian dynamics with rigid body dynamics,
869 > one can study the slow processes in biomolecular systems. Modeling
870 > the DNA as a chain of rigid spheres beads, which subject to harmonic
871 > potentials as well as excluded volume potentials, Mielke and his
872 > coworkers discover rapid superhelical stress generations from the
873 > stochastic simulation of twin supercoiling DNA with response to
874 > induced torques\cite{Mielke2004}. Membrane fusion is another key
875 > biological process which controls a variety of physiological
876 > functions, such as release of neurotransmitters \textit{etc}. A
877 > typical fusion event happens on the time scale of millisecond, which
878 > is impracticable to study using all atomistic model with newtonian
879 > mechanics. With the help of coarse-grained rigid body model and
880 > stochastic dynamics, the fusion pathways were exploited by many
881 > researchers\cite{Noguchi2001,Noguchi2002,Shillcock2005}. Due to the
882 > difficulty of numerical integration of anisotropy rotation, most of
883 > the rigid body models are simply modeled by sphere, cylinder,
884 > ellipsoid or other regular shapes in stochastic simulations. In an
885 > effort to account for the diffusion anisotropy of the arbitrary
886 > particles, Fernandes and de la Torre improved the original Brownian
887 > dynamics simulation algorithm\cite{Ermak1978,Allison1991} by
888 > incorporating a generalized $6\times6$ diffusion tensor and
889 > introducing a simple rotation evolution scheme consisting of three
890 > consecutive rotations\cite{Fernandes2002}. Unfortunately, unexpected
891 > error and bias are introduced into the system due to the arbitrary
892 > order of applying the noncommuting rotation
893 > operators\cite{Beard2003}. Based on the observation the momentum
894 > relaxation time is much less than the time step, one may ignore the
895 > inertia in Brownian dynamics. However, assumption of the zero
896 > average acceleration is not always true for cooperative motion which
897 > is common in protein motion. An inertial Brownian dynamics (IBD) was
898 > proposed to address this issue by adding an inertial correction
899 > term\cite{Beard2003}. As a complement to IBD which has a lower bound
900 > in time step because of the inertial relaxation time, long-time-step
901 > inertial dynamics (LTID) can be used to investigate the inertial
902 > behavior of the polymer segments in low friction
903 > regime\cite{Beard2003}. LTID can also deal with the rotational
904 > dynamics for nonskew bodies without translation-rotation coupling by
905 > separating the translation and rotation motion and taking advantage
906 > of the analytical solution of hydrodynamics properties. However,
907 > typical nonskew bodies like cylinder and ellipsoid are inadequate to
908 > represent most complex macromolecule assemblies. These intricate
909 > molecules have been represented by a set of beads and their
910 > hydrodynamics properties can be calculated using variant
911 > hydrodynamic interaction tensors.
912 >
913 > The goal of the present work is to develop a Langevin dynamics
914 > algorithm for arbitrary rigid particles by integrating the accurate
915 > estimation of friction tensor from hydrodynamics theory into the
916 > sophisticated rigid body dynamics.
917 >
918 >
919 > \subsection{Friction Tensor}
920 >
921 > For an arbitrary rigid body moves in a fluid, it may experience
922 > friction force $f_r$ or friction torque $\tau _r$ along the opposite
923 > direction of the velocity $v$ or angular velocity $\omega$ at
924 > arbitrary origin $P$,
925 > \begin{equation}
926 > \left( \begin{array}{l}
927 > f_r  \\
928 > \tau _r  \\
929 > \end{array} \right) =  - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
930 >   {\Xi _{P,t} } & {\Xi _{P,c}^T }  \\
931 >   {\Xi _{P,c} } & {\Xi _{P,r} }  \\
932 > \end{array}} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
933 > \nu  \\
934 > \omega  \\
935 > \end{array} \right)
936 > \end{equation}
937 > where $\Xi _{P,t}t$ is the translation friction tensor, $\Xi _{P,r}$
938 > is the rotational friction tensor and $\Xi _{P,c}$ is the
939 > translation-rotation coupling tensor. The procedure of calculating
940 > friction tensor using hydrodynamic tensor and comparison between
941 > bead model and shell model were elaborated by Carrasco \textit{et
942 > al}\cite{Carrasco1999}. An important property of the friction tensor
943 > is that the translational friction tensor is independent of origin
944 > while the rotational and coupling are sensitive to the choice of the
945 > origin \cite{Brenner1967}, which can be described by
946 > \begin{equation}
947 > \begin{array}{c}
948 > \Xi _{P,t}  = \Xi _{O,t}  = \Xi _t  \\
949 > \Xi _{P,c}  = \Xi _{O,c}  - r_{OP}  \times \Xi _t  \\
950 > \Xi _{P,r}  = \Xi _{O,r}  - r_{OP}  \times \Xi _t  \times r_{OP}  + \Xi _{O,c}  \times r_{OP}  - r_{OP}  \times \Xi _{O,c}^T  \\
951 > \end{array}
952 > \end{equation}
953 > Where $O$ is another origin and $r_{OP}$ is the vector joining $O$
954 > and $P$. It is also worthy of mention that both of translational and
955 > rotational frictional tensors are always symmetric. In contrast,
956 > coupling tensor is only symmetric at center of reaction:
957 > \begin{equation}
958 > \Xi _{R,c}  = \Xi _{R,c}^T
959 > \end{equation}
960 > The proper location for applying friction force is the center of
961 > reaction, at which the trace of rotational resistance tensor reaches
962 > minimum.
963 >
964 > \subsection{Rigid body dynamics}
965 >
966 > The Hamiltonian of rigid body can be separated in terms of potential
967 > energy $V(r,A)$ and kinetic energy $T(p,\pi)$,
968 > \[
969 > H = V(r,A) + T(v,\pi )
970 > \]
971 > A second-order symplectic method is now obtained by the composition
972 > of the flow maps,
973 > \[
974 > \varphi _{\Delta t}  = \varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}  \circ \varphi
975 > _{\Delta t,T}  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}.
976 > \]
977 > Moreover, $\varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}$ can be divided into two
978 > sub-flows which corresponding to force and torque respectively,
979 > \[
980 > \varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}  = \varphi _{\Delta t/2,F}  \circ \varphi
981 > _{\Delta t/2,\tau }.
982 > \]
983 > Since the associated operators of $\varphi _{\Delta t/2,F} $ and
984 > $\circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\tau }$ are commuted, the composition
985 > order inside $\varphi _{\Delta t/2,V}$ does not matter.
986 >
987 > Furthermore, kinetic potential can be separated to translational
988 > kinetic term, $T^t (p)$, and rotational kinetic term, $T^r (\pi )$,
989 > \begin{equation}
990 > T(p,\pi ) =T^t (p) + T^r (\pi ).
991 > \end{equation}
992 > where $ T^t (p) = \frac{1}{2}v^T m v $ and $T^r (\pi )$ is defined
993 > by \ref{introEquation:rotationalKineticRB}. Therefore, the
994 > corresponding flow maps are given by
995 > \[
996 > \varphi _{\Delta t,T}  = \varphi _{\Delta t,T^t }  \circ \varphi
997 > _{\Delta t,T^r }.
998 > \]
999 > The free rigid body is an example of Lie-Poisson system with
1000 > Hamiltonian function
1001 > \begin{equation}
1002 > T^r (\pi ) = T_1 ^r (\pi _1 ) + T_2^r (\pi _2 ) + T_3^r (\pi _3 )
1003 > \label{introEquation:rotationalKineticRB}
1004 > \end{equation}
1005 > where $T_i^r (\pi _i ) = \frac{{\pi _i ^2 }}{{2I_i }}$ and
1006 > Lie-Poisson structure matrix,
1007 > \begin{equation}
1008 > J(\pi ) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1009 >   0 & {\pi _3 } & { - \pi _2 }  \\
1010 >   { - \pi _3 } & 0 & {\pi _1 }  \\
1011 >   {\pi _2 } & { - \pi _1 } & 0  \\
1012 > \end{array}} \right)
1013 > \end{equation}
1014 > Thus, the dynamics of free rigid body is governed by
1015 > \begin{equation}
1016 > \frac{d}{{dt}}\pi  = J(\pi )\nabla _\pi  T^r (\pi )
1017 > \end{equation}
1018 > One may notice that each $T_i^r$ in Equation
1019 > \ref{introEquation:rotationalKineticRB} can be solved exactly. For
1020 > instance, the equations of motion due to $T_1^r$ are given by
1021 > \begin{equation}
1022 > \frac{d}{{dt}}\pi  = R_1 \pi ,\frac{d}{{dt}}A = AR_1
1023 > \label{introEqaution:RBMotionSingleTerm}
1024 > \end{equation}
1025 > where
1026 > \[ R_1  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1027 >   0 & 0 & 0  \\
1028 >   0 & 0 & {\pi _1 }  \\
1029 >   0 & { - \pi _1 } & 0  \\
1030 > \end{array}} \right).
1031 > \]
1032 > The solutions of Equation \ref{introEqaution:RBMotionSingleTerm} is
1033 > \[
1034 > \pi (\Delta t) = e^{\Delta tR_1 } \pi (0),A(\Delta t) =
1035 > A(0)e^{\Delta tR_1 }
1036 > \]
1037 > with
1038 > \[
1039 > e^{\Delta tR_1 }  = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1040 >   0 & 0 & 0  \\
1041 >   0 & {\cos \theta _1 } & {\sin \theta _1 }  \\
1042 >   0 & { - \sin \theta _1 } & {\cos \theta _1 }  \\
1043 > \end{array}} \right),\theta _1  = \frac{{\pi _1 }}{{I_1 }}\Delta t.
1044 > \]
1045 > To reduce the cost of computing expensive functions in $e^{\Delta
1046 > tR_1 }$, we can use Cayley transformation,
1047 > \[
1048 > e^{\Delta tR_1 }  \approx (1 - \Delta tR_1 )^{ - 1} (1 + \Delta tR_1
1049 > )
1050 > \]
1051 > The flow maps for $T_2^r$ and $T_3^r$ can be found in the same
1052 > manner.
1053 >
1054 > In order to construct a second-order symplectic method, we split the
1055 > angular kinetic Hamiltonian function into five terms
1056 > \[
1057 > T^r (\pi ) = \frac{1}{2}T_1 ^r (\pi _1 ) + \frac{1}{2}T_2^r (\pi _2
1058 > ) + T_3^r (\pi _3 ) + \frac{1}{2}T_2^r (\pi _2 ) + \frac{1}{2}T_1 ^r
1059 > (\pi _1 )
1060 > \].
1061 > Concatenating flows corresponding to these five terms, we can obtain
1062 > the flow map for free rigid body,
1063 > \[
1064 > \varphi _{\Delta t,T^r }  = \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi _1 }  \circ
1065 > \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi _2 }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t,\pi _3 }
1066 > \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi _2 }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi
1067 > _1 }.
1068 > \]
1069 >
1070 > The equations of motion corresponding to potential energy and
1071 > kinetic energy are listed in the below table,
1072 > \begin{center}
1073 > \begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
1074 >  \hline
1075 >  % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
1076 >  Potential & Kinetic \\
1077 >  $\frac{{dq}}{{dt}} = \frac{p}{m}$ & $\frac{d}{{dt}}q = p$ \\
1078 >  $\frac{d}{{dt}}p =  - \frac{{\partial V}}{{\partial q}}$ & $ \frac{d}{{dt}}p = 0$ \\
1079 >  $\frac{d}{{dt}}Q = 0$ & $ \frac{d}{{dt}}Q = Qskew(I^{ - 1} j)$ \\
1080 >  $ \frac{d}{{dt}}\pi  = \sum\limits_i {\left( {Q^T F_i (r,Q)} \right) \times X_i }$ & $\frac{d}{{dt}}\pi  = \pi  \times I^{ - 1} \pi$\\
1081 >  \hline
1082 > \end{tabular}
1083 > \end{center}
1084 >
1085 > Finally, we obtain the overall symplectic flow maps for free moving
1086 > rigid body
1087 > \begin{align*}
1088 > \varphi _{\Delta t}  = &\varphi _{\Delta t/2,F}  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\tau } \circ  \\
1089 >  &\varphi _{\Delta t,T^t }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi _1 }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi _2 }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t,\pi _3 }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi _2 }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,\pi _1 } \circ  \\
1090 >  &\varphi _{\Delta t/2,\tau }  \circ \varphi _{\Delta t/2,F}  .\\
1091 > \label{introEquation:overallRBFlowMaps}
1092 > \end{align*}
1093 >
1094 > \subsection{Langevin dynamics for rigid particles of arbitrary shape}
1095 >
1096 > Consider a Langevin equation of motions in generalized coordinates
1097 > \begin{equation}
1098 > M_i \dot V_i (t) = F_{s,i} (t) + F_{f,i(t)}  + F_{r,i} (t)
1099 > \label{LDGeneralizedForm}
1100 > \end{equation}
1101 > where $M_i$ is a $6\times6$ generalized diagonal mass (include mass
1102 > and moment of inertial) matrix and $V_i$ is a generalized velocity,
1103 > $V_i = V_i(v_i,\omega _i)$. The right side of Eq.
1104 > (\ref{LDGeneralizedForm}) consists of three generalized forces in
1105 > lab-fixed frame, systematic force $F_{s,i}$, dissipative force
1106 > $F_{f,i}$ and stochastic force $F_{r,i}$. While the evolution of the
1107 > system in Newtownian mechanics typically refers to lab-fixed frame,
1108 > it is also convenient to handle the rotation of rigid body in
1109 > body-fixed frame. Thus the friction and random forces are calculated
1110 > in body-fixed frame and converted back to lab-fixed frame by:
1111 > \[
1112 > \begin{array}{l}
1113 > F_{f,i}^l (t) = A^T F_{f,i}^b (t), \\
1114 > F_{r,i}^l (t) = A^T F_{r,i}^b (t) \\
1115 > \end{array}.
1116 > \]
1117 > Here, the body-fixed friction force $F_{r,i}^b$ is proportional to
1118 > the body-fixed velocity at center of resistance $v_{R,i}^b$ and
1119 > angular velocity $\omega _i$,
1120 > \begin{equation}
1121 > F_{r,i}^b (t) = \left( \begin{array}{l}
1122 > f_{r,i}^b (t) \\
1123 > \tau _{r,i}^b (t) \\
1124 > \end{array} \right) =  - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1125 >   {\Xi _{R,t} } & {\Xi _{R,c}^T }  \\
1126 >   {\Xi _{R,c} } & {\Xi _{R,r} }  \\
1127 > \end{array}} \right)\left( \begin{array}{l}
1128 > v_{R,i}^b (t) \\
1129 > \omega _i (t) \\
1130 > \end{array} \right),
1131 > \end{equation}
1132 > while the random force $F_{r,i}^l$ is a Gaussian stochastic variable
1133 > with zero mean and variance
1134 > \begin{equation}
1135 > \left\langle {F_{r,i}^l (t)(F_{r,i}^l (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
1136 > \left\langle {F_{r,i}^b (t)(F_{r,i}^b (t'))^T } \right\rangle  =
1137 > 2k_B T\Xi _R \delta (t - t').
1138 > \end{equation}
1139 > The equation of motion for $v_i$ can be written as
1140 > \begin{equation}
1141 > m\dot v_i (t) = f_{t,i} (t) = f_{s,i} (t) + f_{f,i}^l (t) +
1142 > f_{r,i}^l (t)
1143 > \end{equation}
1144 > Since the frictional force is applied at the center of resistance
1145 > which generally does not coincide with the center of mass, an extra
1146 > torque is exerted at the center of mass. Thus, the net body-fixed
1147 > frictional torque at the center of mass, $\tau _{n,i}^b (t)$, is
1148 > given by
1149 > \begin{equation}
1150 > \tau _{r,i}^b = \tau _{r,i}^b +r_{MR} \times f_{r,i}^b
1151 > \end{equation}
1152 > where $r_{MR}$ is the vector from the center of mass to the center
1153 > of the resistance. Instead of integrating angular velocity in
1154 > lab-fixed frame, we consider the equation of motion of angular
1155 > momentum in body-fixed frame
1156 > \begin{equation}
1157 > \dot \pi _i (t) = \tau _{t,i} (t) = \tau _{s,i} (t) + \tau _{f,i}^b
1158 > (t) + \tau _{r,i}^b(t)
1159 > \end{equation}
1160 >
1161 > Embedding the friction terms into force and torque, one can
1162 > integrate the langevin equations of motion for rigid body of
1163 > arbitrary shape in a velocity-Verlet style 2-part algorithm, where
1164 > $h= \delta t$:
1165 >
1166 > {\tt part one:}
1167 > \begin{align*}
1168 > v_i (t + h/2) &\leftarrow v_i (t) + \frac{{hf_{t,i}^l (t)}}{{2m_i }} \\
1169 > \pi _i (t + h/2) &\leftarrow \pi _i (t) + \frac{{h\tau _{t,i}^b (t)}}{2} \\
1170 > r_i (t + h) &\leftarrow r_i (t) + hv_i (t + h/2) \\
1171 > A_i (t + h) &\leftarrow rotate\left( {h\pi _i (t + h/2)I^{ - 1} } \right) \\
1172 > \end{align*}
1173 > In this context, the $\mathrm{rotate}$ function is the reversible
1174 > product of five consecutive body-fixed rotations,
1175 > \begin{equation}
1176 > \mathrm{rotate}({\bf a}) = \mathsf{G}_x(a_x / 2) \cdot
1177 > \mathsf{G}_y(a_y / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_z(a_z) \cdot \mathsf{G}_y(a_y
1178 > / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_x(a_x /2),
1179 > \end{equation}
1180 > where each rotational propagator, $\mathsf{G}_\alpha(\theta)$,
1181 > rotates both the rotation matrix ($\mathsf{A}$) and the body-fixed
1182 > angular momentum ($\pi$) by an angle $\theta$ around body-fixed axis
1183 > $\alpha$,
1184 > \begin{equation}
1185 > \mathsf{G}_\alpha( \theta ) = \left\{
1186 > \begin{array}{lcl}
1187 > \mathsf{A}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathsf{A}(0) \cdot \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta)^T, \\
1188 > {\bf j}(t) & \leftarrow & \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta) \cdot {\bf
1189 > j}(0).
1190 > \end{array}
1191 > \right.
1192 > \end{equation}
1193 > $\mathsf{R}_\alpha$ is a quadratic approximation to the single-axis
1194 > rotation matrix.  For example, in the small-angle limit, the
1195 > rotation matrix around the body-fixed x-axis can be approximated as
1196 > \begin{equation}
1197 > \mathsf{R}_x(\theta) \approx \left(
1198 > \begin{array}{ccc}
1199 > 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1200 > 0 & \frac{1-\theta^2 / 4}{1 + \theta^2 / 4}  & -\frac{\theta}{1+
1201 > \theta^2 / 4} \\
1202 > 0 & \frac{\theta}{1+ \theta^2 / 4} & \frac{1-\theta^2 / 4}{1 +
1203 > \theta^2 / 4}
1204 > \end{array}
1205 > \right).
1206 > \end{equation}
1207 > All other rotations follow in a straightforward manner.
1208 >
1209 > After the first part of the propagation, the friction and random
1210 > forces are generated at the center of resistance in body-fixed frame
1211 > and converted back into lab-fixed frame
1212 > \[
1213 > f_{t,i}^l (t + h) =  - \left( {\frac{{\partial V}}{{\partial r_i }}}
1214 > \right)_{r_i (t + h)}  + A_i^T (t + h)[F_{f,i}^b (t + h) + F_{r,i}^b
1215 > (t + h)],
1216 > \]
1217 > while the system torque in lab-fixed frame is transformed into
1218 > body-fixed frame,
1219 > \[
1220 > \tau _{t,i}^b (t + h) = A\tau _{s,i}^l (t) + \tau _{n,i}^b (t) +
1221 > \tau _{r,i}^b (t).
1222 > \]
1223 > Once the forces and torques have been obtained at the new time step,
1224 > the velocities can be advanced to the same time value.
1225 >
1226 > {\tt part two:}
1227 > \begin{align*}
1228 > v_i (t) &\leftarrow v_i (t + h/2) + \frac{{hf_{t,i}^l (t + h)}}{{2m_i }} \\
1229 > \pi _i (t) &\leftarrow \pi _i (t + h/2) + \frac{{h\tau _{t,i}^b (t + h)}}{2} \\
1230 > \end{align*}
1231 >
1232 > \subsection{Results and discussion}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines