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

Comparing trunk/chrisDissertation/Electrostatics.tex (file contents):
Revision 3025 by chrisfen, Tue Sep 26 16:02:25 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 3045 by chrisfen, Fri Oct 13 21:03:14 2006 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1 < \chapter{\label{chap:electrostatics}ELECTROSTATIC INTERACTION CORRECTION \\ TECHNIQUES}
1 > \chapter[ELECTROSTATIC INTERACTION CORRECTION \\ TECHNIQUES]{\label{chap:electrostatics}ELECTROSTATIC INTERACTION CORRECTION TECHNIQUES}
2  
3   In molecular simulations, proper accumulation of electrostatic
4   interactions is essential and one of the most
# Line 1067 | Line 1067 | Without this correction, the pressure term on the cent
1067   long-range electrostatic
1068   correction.\cite{Stillinger74,Jorgensen83,Berendsen81,Berendsen87}
1069   Without this correction, the pressure term on the central particle
1070 < from the surroundings is missing. Because they expand to compensate
1071 < for this added pressure term when this correction is included, systems
1072 < composed of these particles tend to under-predict the density of water
1073 < under standard conditions. When using any form of long-range
1074 < electrostatic correction, it has become common practice to develop or
1075 < utilize a reparametrized water model that corrects for this
1070 > from the surroundings is missing. When this correction is included,
1071 > systems of these particles expand to compensate for this added
1072 > pressure term and under-predict the density of water under standard
1073 > conditions. When using any form of long-range electrostatic
1074 > correction, it has become common practice to develop or utilize a
1075 > reparametrized water model that corrects for this
1076   effect.\cite{vanderSpoel98,Fennell04,Horn04} The TIP5P-E model follows
1077 < this practice and was optimized specifically for use with the Ewald
1077 > this practice and was optimized for use with the Ewald
1078   summation.\cite{Rick04} In his publication, Rick preserved the
1079   geometry and point charge magnitudes in TIP5P and focused on altering
1080 < the Lennard-Jones parameters to correct the density at
1081 < 298K.\cite{Rick04} With the density corrected, he compared common
1082 < water properties for TIP5P-E using the Ewald sum with TIP5P using a
1083 < 9~\AA\ cutoff.
1080 > the Lennard-Jones parameters to correct the density at 298~K. With the
1081 > density corrected, he compared common water properties for TIP5P-E
1082 > using the Ewald sum with TIP5P using a 9~\AA\ cutoff.
1083  
1084   In the following sections, we compared these same water properties
1085   calculated from TIP5P-E using the Ewald sum with TIP5P-E using the
# Line 1113 | Line 1112 | forces.  Since the {\sc sp} method does not modify the
1112   brackets of equation
1113   \ref{eq:MolecularPressure}) is directly dependent on the interatomic
1114   forces.  Since the {\sc sp} method does not modify the forces (see
1115 < section. \ref{sec:PairwiseDerivation}), the pressure using {\sc sp}
1115 > section \ref{sec:PairwiseDerivation}), the pressure using {\sc sp}
1116   will be identical to that obtained without an electrostatic
1117   correction.  The {\sc sf} method does alter the virial component and,
1118   by way of the modified pressures, should provide densities more in
# Line 1127 | Line 1126 | method for accumulating statistics, these sequences we
1126   temperatures. The average densities were calculated from the later
1127   three-fourths of each trajectory. Similar to Mahoney and Jorgensen's
1128   method for accumulating statistics, these sequences were spliced into
1129 < 200 segments to calculate the average density and standard deviation
1130 < at each temperature.\cite{Mahoney00}
1129 > 200 segments, each providing an average density. These 200 density
1130 > values were used to calculate the average and standard deviation of
1131 > the density at each temperature.\cite{Mahoney00}
1132  
1133   \begin{figure}
1134   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/tip5peDensities.pdf}
# Line 1148 | Line 1148 | technique are close to, though typically lower than, t
1148   TIP5P-E using differing electrostatic corrections overlaid on the
1149   experimental values.\cite{CRC80} The densities when using the {\sc sf}
1150   technique are close to, though typically lower than, those calculated
1151 < while using the Ewald summation. These slightly reduced densities
1152 < indicate that the pressure component from the image charges at
1153 < R$_\textrm{c}$ is larger than that exerted by the reciprocal-space
1154 < portion of the Ewald summation. Bringing the image charges closer to
1155 < the central particle by choosing a 9~\AA\ R$_\textrm{c}$ (rather than
1156 < the preferred 12~\AA\ R$_\textrm{c}$) increases the strength of their
1157 < interactions, resulting in a further reduction of the densities.
1151 > using the Ewald summation. These slightly reduced densities indicate
1152 > that the pressure component from the image charges at R$_\textrm{c}$
1153 > is larger than that exerted by the reciprocal-space portion of the
1154 > Ewald summation. Bringing the image charges closer to the central
1155 > particle by choosing a 9~\AA\ R$_\textrm{c}$ (rather than the
1156 > preferred 12~\AA\ R$_\textrm{c}$) increases the strength of the image
1157 > charge interactions on the central particle and results in a further
1158 > reduction of the densities.
1159  
1160   Because the strength of the image charge interactions has a noticeable
1161   effect on the density, we would expect the use of electrostatic
# Line 1210 | Line 1211 | check whether the choice of using the Ewald summation
1211   non-polarizable models.\cite{Sorenson00} This excellent agreement with
1212   experiment was maintained when Rick developed TIP5P-E.\cite{Rick04} To
1213   check whether the choice of using the Ewald summation or the {\sc sf}
1214 < technique alters the liquid structure, the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s at 298K
1215 < and 1atm were determined for the systems compared in the previous
1216 < section.
1214 > technique alters the liquid structure, the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s at
1215 > 298~K and 1~atm were determined for the systems compared in the
1216 > previous section.
1217  
1218   \begin{figure}
1219   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/tip5peGofR.pdf}
# Line 1225 | Line 1226 | sf} technique with a various parameters are overlaid o
1226   \end{figure}
1227   The $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s calculated for TIP5P-E while using the {\sc
1228   sf} technique with a various parameters are overlaid on the
1229 < $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ while using the Ewald summation in figure
1230 < \ref{fig:t5peGofRs}. The differences in density do not appear to have
1231 < any effect on the liquid structure as the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s are
1232 < indistinguishable. These results indicate that the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$
1233 < is insensitive to the choice of electrostatic correction.
1229 > $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ while using the Ewald summation in
1230 > figure~\ref{fig:t5peGofRs}. The differences in density do not appear
1231 > to have any effect on the liquid structure as the $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$s
1232 > are indistinguishable. These results indicate that the
1233 > $g_\textrm{OO}(r)$ is insensitive to the choice of electrostatic
1234 > correction.
1235  
1236   \subsection{Thermodynamic Properties}\label{sec:t5peThermo}
1237  
# Line 1244 | Line 1246 | The $\Delta H_\textrm{vap}$ is the enthalpy change req
1246   good set for comparisons involving the {\sc sf} technique.
1247  
1248   The $\Delta H_\textrm{vap}$ is the enthalpy change required to
1249 < transform one mol of substance from the liquid phase to the gas
1249 > transform one mole of substance from the liquid phase to the gas
1250   phase.\cite{Berry00} In molecular simulations, this quantity can be
1251   determined via
1252   \begin{equation}
# Line 1359 | Line 1361 | property trends with temperature seen when using the E
1361  
1362   As observed for the density in section \ref{sec:t5peDensity}, the
1363   property trends with temperature seen when using the Ewald summation
1364 < are reproduced with the {\sc sf} technique. One noticable difference
1364 > are reproduced with the {\sc sf} technique. One noticeable difference
1365   between the properties calculated using the two methods are the lower
1366   $\Delta H_\textrm{vap}$ values when using {\sc sf}. This is to be
1367   expected due to the direct weakening of the electrostatic interaction
# Line 1370 | Line 1372 | inflated $C_p$ values at all temperatures.
1372   steeper than the experimental trend, indirectly resulting in the
1373   inflated $C_p$ values at all temperatures.
1374  
1375 < Above the supercooled regime, $C_p$, $\kappa_T$, and $\alpha_p$
1376 < values all overlap within error. As indicated for the $\Delta
1377 < H_\textrm{vap}$ and $C_p$ results discussed in the previous paragraph,
1378 < the deviations between experiment and simulation in this region are
1379 < not the fault of the electrostatic summation methods but are due to
1380 < the TIP5P class model itself. Like most rigid, non-polarizable,
1381 < point-charge water models, the density decreases with temperature at a
1382 < much faster rate than experiment (see figure
1383 < \ref{fig:t5peDensities}). The reduced density leads to the inflated
1375 > Above the supercooled regime, $C_p$, $\kappa_T$, and $\alpha_p$ values
1376 > all overlap within error. As indicated for the $\Delta H_\textrm{vap}$
1377 > and $C_p$ results discussed in the previous paragraph, the deviations
1378 > between experiment and simulation in this region are not the fault of
1379 > the electrostatic summation methods but are due to the geometry and
1380 > parameters of the TIP5P class of water models. Like most rigid,
1381 > non-polarizable, point-charge water models, the density decreases with
1382 > temperature at a much faster rate than experiment (see figure
1383 > \ref{fig:t5peDensities}). This reduced density leads to the inflated
1384   compressibility and expansivity values at higher temperatures seen
1385   here in figure \ref{fig:t5peThermo}. Incorporation of polarizability
1386 < and many-body effects are required in order for simulation to overcome
1387 < these differences with experiment.\cite{Laasonen93,Donchev06}
1386 > and many-body effects are required in order for water models to
1387 > overcome differences between simulation-based and experimentally
1388 > determined densities at these higher
1389 > temperatures.\cite{Laasonen93,Donchev06}
1390  
1391   At temperatures below the freezing point for experimental water, the
1392   differences between {\sc sf} and the Ewald summation results are more
# Line 1391 | Line 1395 | temperatures below 250~K in the {\sc sf} simulations,
1395   particularly in the case of {\sc sf} without damping. This points to
1396   the onset of a more frustrated or glassy behavior for TIP5P-E at
1397   temperatures below 250~K in the {\sc sf} simulations, indicating that
1398 < disorder in the reciprical-space term of the Ewald summation might act
1398 > disorder in the reciprocal-space term of the Ewald summation might act
1399   to loosen up the local structure more than the image-charges in {\sc
1400 < sf}. Because the systems are locked in different regions of
1401 < phase-space, comparisons between properties at these temperatures are
1402 < not exactly fair. This observation is explored in more detail in
1403 < section \ref{sec:t5peDynamics}.
1400 > sf}. The damped {\sc sf} actually makes a better comparison with
1401 > experiment in this region, particularly for the $\alpha_p$ values. The
1402 > local interactions in the undamped {\sc sf} technique appear to be too
1403 > strong since the property change is much more dramatic than the damped
1404 > forms, while the Ewald summation appears to weight the
1405 > reciprocal-space interactions at the expense the local interactions,
1406 > disagreeing with the experimental results. This observation is
1407 > explored in more detail in section \ref{sec:t5peDynamics}.
1408  
1409   The final thermodynamic property displayed in figure
1410   \ref{fig:t5peThermo}, $\epsilon$, shows the greatest discrepancy
# Line 1406 | Line 1414 | simulations. Lack of a damping function results in die
1414   conditions.\cite{Neumann80,Neumann83} This is readily apparent in the
1415   converged $\epsilon$ values accumulated for the {\sc sf}
1416   simulations. Lack of a damping function results in dielectric
1417 < constants significantly smaller than that obtained using the Ewald
1417 > constants significantly smaller than those obtained using the Ewald
1418   sum. Increasing the damping coefficient to 0.2~\AA$^{-1}$ improves the
1419   agreement considerably. It should be noted that the choice of the
1420   ``Ewald coefficient'' value also has a significant effect on the
# Line 1418 | Line 1426 | further explored as optimal damping coefficients for d
1426   sf}; however, the choice of cutoff radius also plays an important
1427   role. In section \ref{sec:dampingDielectric}, this connection is
1428   further explored as optimal damping coefficients for different choices
1429 < of $R_\textrm{c}$ are determined for {\sc sf} for capturing the
1430 < dielectric behavior.
1429 > of $R_\textrm{c}$ are determined for {\sc sf} in order to best capture
1430 > the dielectric behavior.
1431  
1432   \subsection{Dynamic Properties}\label{sec:t5peDynamics}
1433  
1434   To look at the dynamic properties of TIP5P-E when using the {\sc sf}
1435 < method, 200~ps $NVE$ simulations were performed for each temperature at
1436 < the average density reported by the $NPT$ simulations. The
1437 < self-diffusion constants ($D$) were calculated with the Einstein
1438 < relation using the mean square displacement (MSD),
1435 > method, 200~ps $NVE$ simulations were performed for each temperature
1436 > at the average density reported by the $NPT$ simulations. The
1437 > self-diffusion constants ($D$) were calculated using the mean square
1438 > displacement (MSD) form of the Einstein relation,
1439   \begin{equation}
1440   D = \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}
1441      \frac{\langle\left|\mathbf{r}_i(t)-\mathbf{r}_i(0)\right|^2\rangle}{6t},
# Line 1443 | Line 1451 | regions:
1451   \item linear diffusive regime, and
1452   \item a region with poor statistics.
1453   \end{enumerate}
1454 < The slope from the linear region (region 2) is used to calculate $D$.
1454 > The slope from the linear regime (region 2) is used to calculate $D$.
1455   \begin{figure}
1456   \centering
1457   \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{./figures/ExampleMSD.pdf}
# Line 1462 | Line 1470 | labeled frame axes.}
1470   labeled frame axes.}
1471   \label{fig:waterFrame}
1472   \end{figure}
1473 < In addition to translational diffusion, reorientational time constants
1473 > In addition to translational diffusion, orientational relaxation times
1474   were calculated for comparisons with the Ewald simulations and with
1475 < experiments. These values were determined from 25~ps $NVE$ trajectories
1476 < through calculation of the orientational time correlation function,
1475 > experiments. These values were determined from 25~ps $NVE$
1476 > trajectories through calculation of the orientational time correlation
1477 > function,
1478   \begin{equation}
1479   C_l^\alpha(t) = \left\langle P_l\left[\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i^\alpha(t)
1480                  \cdot\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i^\alpha(0)\right]\right\rangle,
# Line 1532 | Line 1541 | of the choice of damping constant. Their are several p
1541   relaxes faster than experiment with the Ewald sum while tracking
1542   experiment fairly well when using the {\sc sf} technique, independent
1543   of the choice of damping constant. Their are several possible reasons
1544 < for this deviation between techniques. The Ewald results were taken
1545 < shorter (10ps) trajectories than the {\sc sf} results (25ps). A quick
1546 < calculation from a 10~ps trajectory with {\sc sf} with an $\alpha$ of
1547 < 0.2~\AA$^{-1}$ at 25$^\circ$C showed a 0.4~ps drop in $\tau_2^y$,
1548 < placing the result more in line with that obtained using the Ewald
1549 < sum. These results support this explanation; however, recomputing the
1550 < results to meet a poorer statistical standard is
1544 > for this deviation between techniques. The Ewald results were
1545 > calculated using shorter (10ps) trajectories than the {\sc sf} results
1546 > (25ps). A quick calculation from a 10~ps trajectory with {\sc sf} with
1547 > an $\alpha$ of 0.2~\AA$^{-1}$ at 25$^\circ$C showed a 0.4~ps drop in
1548 > $\tau_2^y$, placing the result more in line with that obtained using
1549 > the Ewald sum. This example supports this explanation; however,
1550 > recomputing the results to meet a poorer statistical standard is
1551   counter-productive. Assuming the Ewald results are not the product of
1552   poor statistics, differences in techniques to integrate the
1553   orientational motion could also play a role. {\sc shake} is the most
1554   commonly used technique for approximating rigid-body orientational
1555 < motion,\cite{Ryckaert77} where as in {\sc oopse}, we maintain and
1555 > motion,\cite{Ryckaert77} whereas in {\sc oopse}, we maintain and
1556   integrate the entire rotation matrix using the {\sc dlm}
1557   method.\cite{Meineke05} Since {\sc shake} is an iterative constraint
1558   technique, if the convergence tolerances are raised for increased
# Line 1571 | Line 1580 | monopole (and use the monopole potential of equation (
1580   multipoles. In a mixed system of monopoles and multipoles, the
1581   undamped {\sc sf} potential needs only to shift the force terms of the
1582   monopole (and use the monopole potential of equation (\ref{eq:SFPot}))
1583 < and smoothly cutoff the multipole interactions with a switching
1583 > and smoothly truncate the multipole interactions with a switching
1584   function. The switching function is required in order to conserve
1585 < energy, because a discontinuity will exist at $R_\textrm{c}$ in the
1586 < absence of shifting terms.
1585 > energy, because a discontinuity will exist in both the potential and
1586 > forces at $R_\textrm{c}$ in the absence of shifting terms.
1587  
1588   If we consider damping the {\sc sf} potential (Eq. (\ref{eq:DSFPot})),
1589   then we need to incorporate the complimentary error function term into
# Line 1665 | Line 1674 | term. Continuing with higher rank tensors, we can obta
1674   \end{equation}
1675   Note that $c_2(r_{ij})$ is equal to $c_1(r_{ij})$ plus an additional
1676   term. Continuing with higher rank tensors, we can obtain the damping
1677 < functions for higher multipoles as well as the forces. Each subsequent
1677 > functions for higher multipole potentials and forces. Each subsequent
1678   damping function includes one additional term, and we can simplify the
1679   procedure for obtaining these terms by writing out the following
1680   generating function,
# Line 1699 | Line 1708 | V_\textrm{Ddd} = 3\frac{(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i\cdot\mathb
1708                  c_1(r_{ij}),
1709   \label{eq:dampDipoleDipole}
1710   \end{equation}
1711 < $c_2(r_{ij})$ and $c_1(r_{ij})$ respectively dampen these two
1712 < parts. The forces for the damped dipole-dipole interaction,
1711 > $c_2(r_{ij})$ and $c_1(r_{ij})$ dampen these two parts
1712 > respectively. The forces for the damped dipole-dipole interaction,
1713   \begin{equation}
1714   \begin{split}
1715   F_\textrm{Ddd} = &15\frac{(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij})
# Line 1730 | Line 1739 | going to be quite sensitive to the choice of damping p
1739   constant is calculated from the long-time fluctuations of the system's
1740   accumulated dipole moment (Eq. (\ref{eq:staticDielectric})), so it is
1741   going to be quite sensitive to the choice of damping parameter. We
1742 < would like to choose an optimal damping constant for any particular
1743 < cutoff radius choice that would properly capture the dielectric
1744 < behavior of the liquid.
1742 > would like to choose optimal damping constants such that any arbitrary
1743 > choice of cutoff radius will properly capture the dielectric behavior
1744 > of the liquid.
1745  
1746   In order to find these optimal values, we mapped out the static
1747   dielectric constant as a function of both the damping parameter and
# Line 1743 | Line 1752 | reaction field modified variant of the soft sticky dip
1752   four-point transferable intermolecular potential (TIP4P) for water
1753   targeted for use with the Ewald summation.\cite{Horn04} SSD/RF is the
1754   reaction field modified variant of the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model
1755 < for water\cite{Fennell04} This model is discussed in more detail in
1755 > for water.\cite{Fennell04} This model is discussed in more detail in
1756   the next chapter. One thing to note about it, electrostatic
1757   interactions are handled via dipole-dipole interactions rather than
1758   charge-charge interactions like the other three models. Damping of the
# Line 1776 | Line 1785 | $\alpha$ and $R_\textrm{c}$ were chosen to be 9.5~\AA\
1785   with {\sc sf} these parameters give a dielectric constant of
1786   90.8$\pm$0.9. Another example comes from the TIP4P-Ew paper where
1787   $\alpha$ and $R_\textrm{c}$ were chosen to be 9.5~\AA\ and
1788 < 0.35~\AA$^{-1}$, and these parameters resulted in a $\epsilon_0$ equal
1789 < to 63$\pm$1.\cite{Horn04} We did not perform calculations with these
1790 < exact parameters, but interpolating between surrounding values gives a
1791 < $\epsilon_0$ of 61$\pm$1. Seeing a dependence of the dielectric
1792 < constant on $\alpha$ and $R_\textrm{c}$ with the {\sc sf} technique,
1793 < it might be interesting to investigate the dielectric dependence of
1794 < the real-space Ewald parameters.
1788 > 0.35~\AA$^{-1}$, and these parameters resulted in a dielectric
1789 > constant equal to 63$\pm$1.\cite{Horn04} We did not perform
1790 > calculations with these exact parameters, but interpolating between
1791 > surrounding values gives a dielectric constant of 61$\pm$1. Since the
1792 > dielectric constant is dependent on $\alpha$ and $R_\textrm{c}$ with
1793 > the {\sc sf} technique, it might be interesting to investigate the
1794 > dielectric dependence of the real-space Ewald parameters.
1795  
1796   Although it is tempting to choose damping parameters equivalent to
1797   these Ewald examples, the results discussed in sections
# Line 1816 | Line 1825 | employing lattice summation techniques.  The cumulativ
1825   (\ref{eq:DSFForces}), shows a remarkable ability to reproduce the
1826   energetic and dynamic characteristics exhibited by simulations
1827   employing lattice summation techniques.  The cumulative energy
1828 < difference results showed the undamped {\sc sf} and moderately damped
1829 < {\sc sp} methods produced results nearly identical to the Ewald
1828 > difference results showed that the undamped {\sc sf} and moderately
1829 > damped {\sc sp} methods produce results nearly identical to the Ewald
1830   summation.  Similarly for the dynamic features, the undamped or
1831   moderately damped {\sc sf} and moderately damped {\sc sp} methods
1832   produce force and torque vector magnitude and directions very similar
# Line 1830 | Line 1839 | easily parallelizable.  This should result in substant
1839   As in all purely-pairwise cutoff methods, these methods are expected
1840   to scale approximately {\it linearly} with system size, and they are
1841   easily parallelizable.  This should result in substantial reductions
1842 < in the computational cost of performing large simulations.
1842 > in the computational cost associated with large-scale simulations.
1843  
1844   Aside from the computational cost benefit, these techniques have
1845   applicability in situations where the use of the Ewald sum can prove
# Line 1849 | Line 1858 | method with an electrostatic damping of 0.2~\AA$^{-1}$
1858   systems containing point charges, most structural features will be
1859   accurately captured using the undamped {\sc sf} method or the {\sc sp}
1860   method with an electrostatic damping of 0.2~\AA$^{-1}$.  These methods
1861 < would also be appropriate for molecular dynamics simulations where the
1862 < data of interest is either structural or short-time dynamical
1861 > would also be appropriate in molecular dynamics simulations where the
1862 > data of interest are either structural or short-time dynamical
1863   quantities.  For long-time dynamics and collective motions, the safest
1864   pairwise method we have evaluated is the {\sc sf} method with an
1865   electrostatic damping between 0.2 and 0.25~\AA$^{-1}$. It is also
# Line 1859 | Line 1868 | $R_\textrm{c}$ of 12~\AA, and $\alpha$ should decrease
1868   $R_\textrm{c}$. For consistent dielectric behavior, the damped {\sc
1869   sf} method should use an $\alpha$ of 0.2175~\AA$^{-1}$ for an
1870   $R_\textrm{c}$ of 12~\AA, and $\alpha$ should decrease by
1871 < 0.025~\AA$^{-1}$ for every 1~\AA\ increase in cutoff radius.
1871 > 0.025~\AA$^{-1}$ for every 1~\AA\ increase in the cutoff radius.
1872  
1873   We are not suggesting that there is any flaw with the Ewald sum; in
1874 < fact, it is the standard by which these simple pairwise sums have been
1875 < judged.  However, these results do suggest that in the typical
1874 > fact, it is the standard by which these simple pairwise methods have
1875 > been judged.  However, these results do suggest that in the typical
1876   simulations performed today, the Ewald summation may no longer be
1877   required to obtain the level of accuracy most researchers have come to
1878   expect.

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines