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

Comparing trunk/chrisDissertation/Introduction.tex (file contents):
Revision 2987 by chrisfen, Wed Aug 30 22:36:06 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 3001 by chrisfen, Thu Sep 7 20:42:27 2006 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1   \chapter{\label{chap:intro}INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND}
2  
3 < \section{\label{sec:IntroIntegrate}Rigid Body Motion}
3 > In order to advance our understanding of natural chemical and physical
4 > processes, researchers develop explanations for events observed
5 > experimentally. These hypotheses, supported by a body of corroborating
6 > observations, can develop into accepted theories for how these
7 > processes occur. This validation process, as well as testing the
8 > limits of these theories, is essential in developing a firm foundation
9 > for our knowledge. Theories involving molecular scale systems cause
10 > particular difficulties in this process because their size and often
11 > fast motions make them difficult to observe experimentally. One useful
12 > tool for addressing these difficulties is computer simulation.
13 >
14 > In computer simulations, we can develop models from either the theory
15 > or experimental knowledge and then test them in a controlled
16 > environment. Work done in this manner allows us to further refine
17 > theories, more accurately represent what is happening in experimental
18 > observations, and even make predictions about what one will see in
19 > experiments. Thus, computer simulations of molecular systems act as a
20 > bridge between theory and experiment.
21 >
22 > Depending on the system of interest, there are a variety of different
23 > computational techniques that can used to test and gather information
24 > from the developed models. In the study of classical systems, the two
25 > most commonly used techniques are Monte Carlo and molecular
26 > dynamics. Both of these methods operate by calculating interactions
27 > between particles of our model systems; however, the progression of
28 > the simulation under the different techniques is vastly
29 > different. Monte Carlo operates through random configuration changes
30 > that that follow rules adhering to a specific statistical mechanics
31 > ensemble, while molecular dynamics is chiefly concerned with solving
32 > the classic equations of motion to move between configurations within
33 > an ensemble. Thermodynamic properties can be calculated from both
34 > techniques; but because of the random nature of Monte Carlo, only
35 > molecular dynamics can be used to investigate dynamical
36 > quantities. The research presented in the following chapters utilized
37 > molecular dynamics near exclusively, so we will present a general
38 > introduction to molecular dynamics and not Monte Carlo. There are
39 > several resources available for those desiring a more in-depth
40 > presentation of either of these
41 > techniques.\cite{Allen87,Frenkel02,Leach01}
42 >
43 > \section{\label{sec:MolecularDynamics}Molecular Dynamics}
44 >
45 > \section{\label{sec:MovingParticles}Propagating Particle Motion}
46 >
47 > \subsection{\label{sec:IntroIntegrate}Rigid Body Motion}
48 >
49 > Rigid bodies are non-spherical particles or collections of particles
50 > (e.g. $\mbox{C}_{60}$) that have a constant internal potential and
51 > move collectively.\cite{Goldstein01} Discounting iterative constraint
52 > procedures like {\sc shake} and {\sc rattle}, they are not included in
53 > most simulation packages because of the algorithmic complexity
54 > involved in propagating orientational degrees of
55 > freedom.\cite{Ryckaert77,Andersen83,Krautler01} Integrators which
56 > propagate orientational motion with an acceptable level of energy
57 > conservation for molecular dynamics are relatively new inventions.
58 >
59 > Moving a rigid body involves determination of both the force and
60 > torque applied by the surroundings, which directly affect the
61 > translational and rotational motion in turn. In order to accumulate
62 > the total force on a rigid body, the external forces and torques must
63 > first be calculated for all the internal particles. The total force on
64 > the rigid body is simply the sum of these external forces.
65 > Accumulation of the total torque on the rigid body is more complex
66 > than the force because the torque is applied to the center of mass of
67 > the rigid body. The space-fixed torque on rigid body $i$ is
68 > \begin{equation}
69 > \boldsymbol{\tau}_i=
70 >        \sum_{a}\biggl[(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia}
71 >        + \boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}\biggr],
72 > \label{eq:torqueAccumulate}
73 > \end{equation}
74 > where $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque on and
75 > position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$,
76 > $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$, and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}$ are the force on,
77 > position of, and torque on the component particles.
78 >
79 > The summation of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis. In
80 > order to move between the space fixed and body fixed coordinate axes,
81 > parameters describing the orientation must be maintained for each
82 > rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix ($\mathsf{A}$) can be
83 > described by the three Euler angles ($\phi, \theta,$ and $\psi$),
84 > where the elements of $\mathsf{A}$ are composed of trigonometric
85 > operations involving $\phi, \theta,$ and $\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01}
86 > Direct propagation of the Euler angles has a known $1/\sin\theta$
87 > divergence in the equations of motion for $\phi$ and $\psi$, leading
88 > to numerical instabilities any time one of the directional atoms or
89 > rigid bodies has an orientation near $\theta=0$ or
90 > $\theta=\pi$.\cite{Allen87} One of the most practical ways to avoid
91 > this ``gimbal point'' is to switch to another angular set defining the
92 > orientation of the rigid body near this point.\cite{Barojas73} This
93 > procedure results in additional book-keeping and increased algorithm
94 > complexity. In the search for more elegant alternative methods, Evans
95 > proposed the use of quaternions to describe and propagate
96 > orientational motion.\cite{Evans77}
97 >
98 > The quaternion method for integration involves a four dimensional
99 > representation of the orientation of a rigid
100 > body.\cite{Evans77,Evans77b,Allen87} Thus, the elements of
101 > $\mathsf{A}$ can be expressed as arithmetic operations involving the
102 > four quaternions ($q_w, q_x, q_y,$ and $q_z$),
103 > \begin{equation}
104 > \mathsf{A} = \left( \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l@{\quad}l}
105 > q_0^2+q_1^2-q_2^2-q_3^2 & 2(q_1q_2+q_0q_3) & 2(q_1q_3-q_0q_2) \\
106 > 2(q_1q_2-q_0q_3) & q_0^2-q_1^2+q_2^2-q_3^2 & 2(q_2q_3+q_0q_1) \\
107 > 2(q_1q_3+q_0q_2) & 2(q_2q_3-q_0q_1) & q_0^2-q_1^2-q_2^2+q_3^2 \\
108 > \end{array}\right).
109 > \end{equation}
110 > Integration of the equations of motion involves a series of arithmetic
111 > operations involving the quaternions and angular momenta and leads to
112 > performance enhancements over Euler angles, particularly for very
113 > small systems.\cite{Evans77} This integration methods works well for
114 > propagating orientational motion in the canonical ensemble ($NVT$);
115 > however, energy conservation concerns arise when using the simple
116 > quaternion technique under the microcanonical ($NVE$) ensemble.  An
117 > earlier implementation of {\sc oopse} utilized quaternions for
118 > propagation of rotational motion; however, a detailed investigation
119 > showed that they resulted in a steady drift in the total energy,
120 > something that has been observed by Kol {\it et al.} (also see
121 > section~\ref{sec:waterSimMethods}).\cite{Kol97}
122 >
123 > Because of the outlined issues involving integration of the
124 > orientational motion using both Euler angles and quaternions, we
125 > decided to focus on a relatively new scheme that propagates the entire
126 > nine parameter rotation matrix. This techniques is a velocity-Verlet
127 > version of the symplectic splitting method proposed by Dullweber,
128 > Leimkuhler and McLachlan ({\sc dlm}).\cite{Dullweber97} When there are
129 > no directional atoms or rigid bodies present in the simulation, this
130 > integrator becomes the standard velocity-Verlet integrator which is
131 > known to effectively sample the microcanonical ($NVE$)
132 > ensemble.\cite{Frenkel02}
133 >
134 > The key aspect of the integration method proposed by Dullweber
135 > \emph{et al.} is that the entire $3 \times 3$ rotation matrix is
136 > propagated from one time step to the next. In the past, this would not
137 > have been as feasible, since the rotation matrix for a single body has
138 > nine elements compared with the more memory-efficient methods (using
139 > three Euler angles or four quaternions).  Computer memory has become
140 > much less costly in recent years, and this can be translated into
141 > substantial benefits in energy conservation.
142 >
143 > The integration of the equations of motion is carried out in a
144 > velocity-Verlet style two-part algorithm.\cite{Swope82} The first-part
145 > ({\tt moveA}) consists of a half-step ($t + \delta t/2$) of the linear
146 > velocity (${\bf v}$) and angular momenta ({\bf j}) and a full-step ($t
147 > + \delta t$) of the positions ({\bf r}) and rotation matrix,
148 > \begin{equation*}
149 > {\tt moveA} = \left\{\begin{array}{r@{\quad\leftarrow\quad}l}
150 > {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t / 2\right) & {\bf v}(t)
151 >        + \left( {\bf f}(t) / m \right)(\delta t/2), \\
152 > %
153 > {\bf r}(t + \delta t) & {\bf r}(t)
154 >        + {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right)\delta t, \\
155 > %
156 > {\bf j}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right) & {\bf j}(t)
157 >        + \boldsymbol{\tau}^b(t)(\delta t/2), \\
158 > %
159 > \mathsf{A}(t + \delta t) & \mathrm{rotate}\left( {\bf j}
160 >        (t + \delta t / 2)\delta t \cdot
161 >                \overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}^{-1} \right),
162 > \end{array}\right.
163 > \end{equation*}
164 > where $\overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}^{-1}$ is the inverse of the
165 > moment of inertia tensor. The $\mathrm{rotate}$ function is the
166 > product of rotations about the three body-fixed axes,
167 > \begin{equation}
168 > \mathrm{rotate}({\bf a}) = \mathsf{G}_x(a_x / 2) \cdot
169 > \mathsf{G}_y(a_y / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_z(a_z) \cdot \mathsf{G}_y(a_y /
170 > 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_x(a_x /2),
171 > \label{eq:dlmTrot}
172 > \end{equation}
173 > where each rotational propagator, $\mathsf{G}_\alpha(\theta)$, rotates
174 > both the rotation matrix ($\mathsf{A}$) and the body-fixed angular
175 > momentum (${\bf j}$) by an angle $\theta$ around body-fixed axis
176 > $\alpha$,
177 > \begin{equation}
178 > \mathsf{G}_\alpha( \theta ) = \left\{
179 > \begin{array}{l@{\quad\leftarrow\quad}l}
180 > \mathsf{A}(t) & \mathsf{A}(0) \cdot \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta)^\textrm{T},\\
181 > {\bf j}(t) & \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta) \cdot {\bf j}(0).
182 > \end{array}
183 > \right.
184 > \end{equation}
185 > $\mathsf{R}_\alpha$ is a quadratic approximation to the single-axis
186 > rotation matrix.  For example, in the small-angle limit, the rotation
187 > matrix around the body-fixed x-axis can be approximated as
188 > \begin{equation}
189 > \mathsf{R}_x(\theta) \approx \left(
190 > \begin{array}{ccc}
191 > 1 & 0 & 0 \\
192 > 0 & \frac{1-\theta^2 / 4}{1 + \theta^2 / 4} & -\frac{\theta}{1+\theta^2 / 4} \\
193 > 0 & \frac{\theta}{1+\theta^2 / 4} & \frac{1-\theta^2 / 4}{1 + \theta^2 / 4}
194 > \end{array}
195 > \right).
196 > \end{equation}
197 > The remaining rotations follow in a straightforward manner. As seen
198 > from the form of equation~(\ref{eq:dlmTrot}), the {\sc dlm} method
199 > uses a Trotter factorization of the orientational
200 > propagator.\cite{Trotter59} This has three effects:
201 > \begin{enumerate}
202 > \item the integrator is area-preserving in phase space (i.e. it is
203 > {\it symplectic}),
204 > \item the integrator is time-{\it reversible}, and
205 > \item the error for a single time step is of order
206 > $\mathcal{O}\left(\delta t^4\right)$ for time steps of length $\delta t$.
207 > \end{enumerate}
208 >
209 > After the initial half-step ({\tt moveA}), the forces and torques are
210 > evaluated for all of the particles. Once completed, the velocities can
211 > be advanced to complete the second-half of the two-part algorithm
212 > ({\tt moveB}), resulting an a completed full step of both the
213 > positions and momenta,
214 > \begin{equation*}
215 > {\tt moveB} = \left\{\begin{array}{r@{\quad\leftarrow\quad}l}
216 > {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t \right) &
217 >        {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right)
218 >        + \left({\bf f}(t + \delta t) / m \right)(\delta t/2), \\
219 > %
220 > {\bf j}\left(t + \delta t \right) &
221 >        {\bf j}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right)
222 >        + \boldsymbol{\tau}^b(t + \delta t)(\delta t/2).
223 > \end{array}\right.
224 > \end{equation*}
225 >
226 > The matrix rotations used in the {\sc dlm} method end up being more
227 > costly computationally than the simpler arithmetic quaternion
228 > propagation. With the same time step, a 1024-molecule water simulation
229 > incurs approximately a 10\% increase in computation time using the
230 > {\sc dlm} method in place of quaternions. This cost is more than
231 > justified when comparing the energy conservation achieved by the two
232 > methods. Figure \ref{fig:quatdlm} provides a comparative analysis of
233 > the {\sc dlm} method versus the traditional quaternion scheme.
234 >
235 > \begin{figure}
236 > \centering
237 > \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{./figures/dlmVsQuat.pdf}
238 > \caption[Energy conservation analysis of the {\sc dlm} and quaternion
239 > integration methods]{Analysis of the energy conservation of the {\sc
240 > dlm} and quaternion integration methods.  $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the
241 > linear drift in energy over time and $\delta \mathrm{E}_0$ is the
242 > standard deviation of energy fluctuations around this drift.  All
243 > simulations were of a 1024 SSD water system at 298 K starting from the
244 > same initial configuration. Note that the {\sc dlm} method provides
245 > more than an order-of-magnitude improvement in both the energy drift
246 > and the size of the energy fluctuations when compared with the
247 > quaternion method at any given time step.  At time steps larger than 4
248 > fs, the quaternion scheme resulted in rapidly rising energies which
249 > eventually lead to simulation failure.  Using the {\sc dlm} method,
250 > time steps up to 8 fs can be taken before this behavior is evident.}
251 > \label{fig:quatdlm}
252 > \end{figure}
253 >
254 > In figure \ref{fig:quatdlm}, $\delta \mbox{E}_1$ is a measure of the
255 > linear energy drift in units of $\mbox{kcal mol}^{-1}$ per particle
256 > over a nanosecond of simulation time, and $\delta \mbox{E}_0$ is the
257 > standard deviation of the energy fluctuations in units of $\mbox{kcal
258 > mol}^{-1}$ per particle. In the top plot, it is apparent that the
259 > energy drift is reduced by a significant amount (2 to 3 orders of
260 > magnitude improvement at all tested time steps) by choosing the {\sc
261 > dlm} method over the simple non-symplectic quaternion integration
262 > method.  In addition to this improvement in energy drift, the
263 > fluctuations in the total energy are also dampened by 1 to 2 orders of
264 > magnitude by utilizing the {\sc dlm} method.
265 >
266 > \begin{figure}
267 > \centering
268 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/compCost.pdf}
269 > \caption[Energy drift as a function of required simulation run
270 > time]{Energy drift as a function of required simulation run time.
271 > $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear drift in energy over time.
272 > Simulations were performed on a single 2.5 GHz Pentium 4
273 > processor. Simulation time comparisons can be made by tracing
274 > horizontally from one curve to the other. For example, a simulation
275 > that takes 24 hours using the {\sc dlm} method will take roughly
276 > 210 hours using the simple quaternion method if the same degree of
277 > energy conservation is desired.}
278 > \label{fig:cpuCost}
279 > \end{figure}
280 > Although the {\sc dlm} method is more computationally expensive than
281 > the traditional quaternion scheme for propagating of a time step,
282 > consideration of the computational cost for a long simulation with a
283 > particular level of energy conservation is in order.  A plot of energy
284 > drift versus computational cost was generated
285 > (Fig.~\ref{fig:cpuCost}). This figure provides an estimate of the CPU
286 > time required under the two integration schemes for 1 nanosecond of
287 > simulation time for the model 1024-molecule system.  By choosing a
288 > desired energy drift value it is possible to determine the CPU time
289 > required for both methods. If a $\delta \mbox{E}_1$ of
290 > 0.001~kcal~mol$^{-1}$ per particle is desired, a nanosecond of
291 > simulation time will require ~19 hours of CPU time with the {\sc dlm}
292 > integrator, while the quaternion scheme will require ~154 hours of CPU
293 > time. This demonstrates the computational advantage of the integration
294 > scheme utilized in {\sc oopse}.
295 >
296 > \subsection{Periodic Boundary Conditions}
297 >
298 > \begin{figure}
299 > \centering
300 > \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{./figures/periodicImage.pdf}
301 > \caption{With periodic boundary conditions imposed, when particles
302 > move out of one side the simulation box, they wrap back in the
303 > opposite side. In this manner, a finite system of particles behaves as
304 > an infinite system.}
305 > \label{fig:periodicImage}
306 > \end{figure}
307 >
308 > \section{Accumulating Interactions}
309 >
310 > In the force calculation between {\tt moveA} and {\tt moveB} mentioned
311 > in section \ref{sec:IntroIntegrate}, we need to accumulate the
312 > potential and forces (and torques if the particle is a rigid body or
313 > multipole) on each particle from their surroundings. This can quickly
314 > become a cumbersome task for large systems since the number of pair
315 > interactions increases by $\mathcal{O}(N(N-1)/2)$ if you accumulate
316 > interactions between all particles in the system, note the utilization
317 > of Newton's third law to reduce the interaction number from
318 > $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$. The case of periodic boundary conditions further
319 > complicates matters by turning the finite system into an infinitely
320 > repeating one. Fortunately, we can reduce the scale of this problem by
321 > using spherical cutoff methods.
322 >
323 > \begin{figure}
324 > \centering
325 > \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{./figures/sphericalCut.pdf}
326 > \caption{When using a spherical cutoff, only particles within a chosen
327 > cutoff radius distance, $R_\textrm{c}$, of the central particle are
328 > included in the pairwise summation. This reduces a problem that scales
329 > by $\sim\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ to one that scales by $\sim\mathcal{O}(N)$.}
330 > \label{fig:sphereCut}
331 > \end{figure}
332 > With spherical cutoffs, rather than accumulating the full set of
333 > interactions between all particles in the simulation, we only
334 > explicitly consider interactions between local particles out to a
335 > specified cutoff radius distance, $R_\textrm{c}$, (see figure
336 > \ref{fig:sphereCut}). This reduces the scaling of the interaction to
337 > $\mathcal{O}(N\cdot\textrm{c})$, where `c' is a value that depends on
338 > the size of $R_\textrm{c}$ (c $\approx R_\textrm{c}^3$). Determination
339 > of which particles are within the cutoff is also an issue, because
340 > this process requires a full loop over all $N(N-1)/2$ pairs. To reduce
341 > the this expense, we can use neighbor lists.\cite{Verlet67,Thompson83}
342 > With neighbor lists, we have a second list of particles built from a
343 > list radius $R_\textrm{l}$, which is larger than $R_\textrm{c}$. Once
344 > any of the particles within $R_\textrm{l}$ move a distance of
345 > $R_\textrm{l}-R_\textrm{c}$ (the ``skin'' thickness), we rebuild the
346 > list with the full $N(N-1)/2$ loop.\cite{Verlet67} With an appropriate
347 > skin thickness, these updates are only performed every $\sim$20
348 > time steps, significantly reducing the time spent on pair-list
349 > bookkeeping operations.\cite{Allen87} If these neighbor lists are
350 > utilized, it is important that these list updates occur
351 > regularly. Incorrect application of this technique leads to
352 > non-physical dynamics, such as the ``flying block of ice'' behavior
353 > for which improper neighbor list handling was identified a one of the
354 > possible causes.\cite{Harvey98,Sagui99}
355 >
356 > \subsection{Correcting Cutoff Discontinuities}
357 > \begin{figure}
358 > \centering
359 > \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{./figures/ljCutoffSquare.pdf}
360 > \caption{The common methods to smooth the potential discontinuity
361 > introduced when using a cutoff include a shifted potential, a shifted
362 > force, and a switching function. The shifted potential and shifted
363 > force both lift the whole potential so that it zeroes at
364 > $R_\textrm{c}$, thereby reducing the strength of the interaction. The
365 > (cubic) switching function only alters the potential in the switching
366 > region in order to smooth out the discontinuity.}
367 > \label{fig:ljCutoff}
368 > \end{figure}
369 > As particle move in and out of $R_\textrm{c}$, there will be sudden
370 > discontinuous jumps in the potential (and forces) due to their
371 > appearance and disappearance. In order to prevent heating and poor
372 > energy conservation in the simulations, this discontinuity needs to be
373 > smoothed out. There are several ways to modify the function so that it
374 > crosses $R_\textrm{c}$ in a continuous fashion, and the easiest
375 > methods is shifting the potential. To shift the potential, we simply
376 > subtract out the value we calculate at $R_\textrm{c}$ from the whole
377 > potential. For the shifted form of the Lennard-Jones potential is
378 > \begin{equation}
379 > V_\textrm{SLJ} = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad\quad}l}
380 >        V_\textrm{LJ}(r_{ij}) - V_\textrm{LJ}(R_\textrm{c}) & r_{ij} < R_\textrm{c}, \\
381 >        0 & r_{ij} \geqslant R_\textrm{c},
382 > \end{array}\right.
383 > \end{equation}
384 > where
385 > \begin{equation}
386 > V_\textrm{LJ} = 4\epsilon\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12} -
387 >                                \left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^6\right].
388 > \end{equation}
389 > In figure \ref{fig:ljCutoff}, the shifted form of the potential
390 > reaches zero at the cutoff radius at the expense of the correct
391 > magnitude below $R_\textrm{c}$. This correction method also does
392 > nothing to correct the discontinuity in the forces. We can account for
393 > this force discontinuity by shifting in the by applying the shifting
394 > in the forces rather than just the potential via
395 > \begin{equation}
396 > V_\textrm{SFLJ} = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad\quad}l}
397 >        V_\textrm{LJ}({r_{ij}}) - V_\textrm{LJ}(R_\textrm{c}) -
398 >                \left(\frac{d V(r_{ij})}{d r_{ij}}\right)_{r_{ij}=R_\textrm{c}}
399 >                (r_{ij} - R_\textrm{c}) & r_{ij} < R_\textrm{c}, \\
400 >        0 & r_{ij} \geqslant R_\textrm{c}.
401 > \end{array}\right.
402 > \end{equation}
403 > The forces are continuous with this potential; however, the inclusion
404 > of the derivative term distorts the potential even further than the
405 > simple shifting as shown in figure \ref{fig:ljCutoff}. The method for
406 > correcting the discontinuity which results in the smallest
407 > perturbation in both the potential and the forces is the use of a
408 > switching function. The cubic switching function,
409 > \begin{equation}
410 > S(r) = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad\quad}l}
411 >        1 & r_{ij} \leqslant R_\textrm{sw}, \\
412 >        \frac{(R_\textrm{c} + 2r_{ij} - 3R_\textrm{sw})
413 >                (R_\textrm{c} - r_{ij})^2}{(R_\textrm{c} - R_\textrm{sw})^3}
414 >                & R_\textrm{sw} < r_{ij} \leqslant R_\textrm{c}, \\
415 >        0 & r_{ij} > R_\textrm{c},
416 >        \end{array}\right.
417 > \end{equation}
418 > is sufficient to smooth the potential (again, see figure
419 > \ref{fig:ljCutoff}) and the forces by only perturbing the potential in
420 > the switching region. If smooth second derivatives are required, a
421 > higher order polynomial switching function (i.e. fifth order
422 > polynomial) can be used.\cite{Andrea83,Leach01} It should be noted
423 > that the higher the order of the polynomial, the more abrupt the
424 > switching transition.
425 >
426 > \subsection{Long-Range Interaction Corrections}
427 >
428 > While a good approximation, accumulating interaction only from the
429 > nearby particles can lead to some issues, because the further away
430 > surrounding particles do still have a small effect. For instance,
431 > while the strength of the Lennard-Jones interaction is quite weak at
432 > $R_\textrm{c}$ in figure \ref{fig:ljCutoff}, we are discarding all of
433 > the attractive interaction that extends out to extremely long
434 > distances. Thus, the potential is a little too high and the pressure
435 > on the central particle from the surroundings is a little too low. For
436 > homogeneous Lennard-Jones systems, we can correct for this neglect by
437 > assuming a uniform density and integrating the missing part,
438 > \begin{equation}
439 > V_\textrm{full}(r_{ij}) \approx V_\textrm{c}
440 >                + 2\pi N\rho\int^\infty_{R_\textrm{c}}r^2V_\textrm{LJ}(r)dr,
441 > \end{equation}
442 > where $V_\textrm{c}$ is the truncated Lennard-Jones
443 > potential.\cite{Allen87} Like the potential, other Lennard-Jones
444 > properties can be corrected by integration over the relevant
445 > function. Note that with heterogeneous systems, this correction begins
446 > to break down because the density is no longer uniform.
447 >
448 > Correcting long-range electrostatic interactions is a topic of great
449 > importance in the field of molecular simulations. There have been
450 > several techniques developed to address this issue, like the Ewald
451 > summation and the reaction field technique. An in-depth analysis of
452 > this problem, as well as useful corrective techniques, is presented in
453 > chapter \ref{chap:electrostatics}.
454 >
455 > \section{Measuring Properties}
456 >
457 > \section{Application of the Techniques}
458 >
459 > In the following chapters, the above techniques are all utilized in
460 > the study of molecular systems. There are a number of excellent
461 > simulation packages available, both free and commercial, which
462 > incorporate many of these
463 > methods.\cite{Brooks83,MacKerell98,Pearlman95,Berendsen95,Lindahl01,Smith96,Ponder87}
464 > Because of our interest in rigid body dynamics, point multipoles, and
465 > systems where the orientational degrees cannot be handled using the
466 > common constraint procedures (like {\sc shake}), the majority of the
467 > following work was performed using {\sc oopse}, the object-oriented
468 > parallel simulation engine.\cite{Meineke05} The {\sc oopse} package
469 > started out as a collection of separate programs written within our
470 > group, and has developed into one of the few parallel molecular
471 > dynamics packages capable of accurately integrating rigid bodies and
472 > point multipoles.
473 >
474 > In chapter \ref{chap:electrostatics}, we investigate correction
475 > techniques for proper handling of long-ranged electrostatic
476 > interactions. In particular we develop and evaluate some new pairwise
477 > methods which we have incorporated into {\sc oopse}. These techniques
478 > make an appearance in the later chapters, as they are applied to
479 > specific systems of interest, showing how it they can improve the
480 > quality of various molecular simulations.
481 >
482 > In chapter \ref{chap:water}, we focus on simple water models,
483 > specifically the single-point soft sticky dipole (SSD) family of water
484 > models. These single-point models are more efficient than the common
485 > multi-point partial charge models and, in many cases, better capture
486 > the dynamic properties of water. We discuss improvements to these
487 > models in regards to long-range electrostatic corrections and show
488 > that these models can work well with the techniques discussed in
489 > chapter \ref{chap:electrostatics}. By investigating and improving
490 > simple water models, we are extending the limits of computational
491 > efficiency for systems that heavily depend on water calculations.
492 >
493 > In chapter \ref{chap:ice}, we study a unique polymorph of ice that we
494 > discovered while performing water simulations with the fast simple
495 > water models discussed in the previous chapter. This form of ice,
496 > which we called ``imaginary ice'' (Ice-$i$), has a low-density
497 > structure which is different from any known polymorph from either
498 > experiment or other simulations. In this study, we perform a free
499 > energy analysis and see that this structure is in fact the
500 > thermodynamically preferred form of ice for both the single-point and
501 > commonly used multi-point water models under the chosen simulation
502 > conditions. We also consider electrostatic corrections, again
503 > including the techniques discussed in chapter
504 > \ref{chap:electrostatics}, to see how they influence the free energy
505 > results. This work, to some degree, addresses the appropriateness of
506 > using these simplistic water models outside of the conditions for
507 > which they were developed.
508 >
509 > In the final chapter we summarize the work presented previously. We
510 > also close with some final comments before the supporting information
511 > presented in the appendices.

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines