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 3023 by chrisfen, Tue Sep 26 03:07:59 2006 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1 < \chapter{\label{chap:intro}INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND}
1 > \chapter{\label{chap:intro}INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND}
2  
3 < \section{\label{sec:IntroIntegrate}Rigid Body Motion}
3 > The following dissertation presents the primary aspects of the
4 > research I have performed and been involved with over the last several
5 > years. Rather than presenting the topics in a chronological fashion,
6 > they were arranged to form a series where the later topics apply and
7 > extend the findings of the former topics. This layout does lead to
8 > occasional situations where knowledge gleaned from earlier chapters
9 > (particularly chapter \ref{chap:electrostatics}) is not applied
10 > outright in the later work; however, I feel that this organization is
11 > more instructive and provides a more cohesive progression of research
12 > efforts.
13 >
14 > This chapter gives a general overview of molecular simulations, with
15 > particular emphasis on considerations that need to be made in order to
16 > apply the technique properly. This leads quite naturally into chapter
17 > \ref{chap:electrostatics}, where we investigate correction techniques
18 > for proper handling of long-ranged electrostatic interactions. In
19 > particular we develop and evaluate some new simple pairwise
20 > methods. These techniques make an appearance in the later chapters, as
21 > they are applied to specific systems of interest, showing how it they
22 > can improve the quality of various molecular simulations.
23 >
24 > In chapter \ref{chap:water}, we focus on simple water models,
25 > specifically the single-point soft sticky dipole (SSD) family of water
26 > models. These single-point models are more efficient than the common
27 > multi-point partial charge models and, in many cases, better capture
28 > the dynamic properties of water. We discuss improvements to these
29 > models in regards to long-range electrostatic corrections and show
30 > that these models can work well with the techniques discussed in
31 > chapter \ref{chap:electrostatics}. By investigating and improving
32 > simple water models, we are extending the limits of computational
33 > efficiency for systems that depend heavily on water calculations.
34 >
35 > In chapter \ref{chap:ice}, we study a unique polymorph of ice that we
36 > discovered while performing water simulations with the fast simple
37 > water models discussed in the previous chapter. This form of ice,
38 > which we called ``imaginary ice'' (Ice-$i$), has a low-density
39 > structure which is different from any known polymorph from either
40 > experiment or other simulations. In this study, we perform a free
41 > energy analysis and see that this structure is in fact the
42 > thermodynamically preferred form of ice for both the single-point and
43 > commonly used multi-point water models under the chosen simulation
44 > conditions. We also consider electrostatic corrections, again
45 > including the techniques discussed in chapter
46 > \ref{chap:electrostatics}, to see how they influence the free energy
47 > results. This work, to some degree, addresses the appropriateness of
48 > using these simplistic water models outside of the conditions for
49 > which they were developed.
50 >
51 > Finally, in chapter \ref{chap:conclusion}, we summarize the work
52 > presented in the previous chapters and connect ideas together with
53 > some final comments. The supporting information follows in the
54 > appendix, and it gives a more detailed look at systems discussed in
55 > chapter \ref{chap:electrostatics}.
56 >
57 > \section{On Molecular Simulation}
58 >
59 > In order to advance our understanding of natural chemical and physical
60 > processes, researchers develop explanations for events observed
61 > experimentally. These hypotheses, supported by a body of corroborating
62 > observations, can develop into accepted theories for how these
63 > processes occur. This validation process, as well as testing the
64 > limits of these theories, is essential in developing a firm foundation
65 > for our knowledge. Theories involving molecular scale systems cause
66 > particular difficulties in this process because their size and often
67 > fast motions make them difficult to observe experimentally. One useful
68 > tool for addressing these difficulties is computer simulation.
69 >
70 > In computer simulations, we can develop models from either the theory
71 > or experimental knowledge and then test them in a controlled
72 > environment. Work done in this manner allows us to further refine
73 > theories, more accurately represent what is happening in experimental
74 > observations, and even make predictions about what one will see in
75 > experiments. Thus, computer simulations of molecular systems act as a
76 > bridge between theory and experiment.
77 >
78 > Depending on the system of interest, there are a variety of different
79 > computational techniques that can used to test and gather information
80 > from the developed models. In the study of classical systems, the two
81 > most commonly used techniques are Monte Carlo and molecular
82 > dynamics. Both of these methods operate by calculating interactions
83 > between particles of our model systems; however, the progression of
84 > the simulation under the different techniques is vastly
85 > different. Monte Carlo operates through random configuration changes
86 > that that follow rules adhering to a specific statistical mechanics
87 > ensemble, while molecular dynamics is chiefly concerned with solving
88 > the classic equations of motion to move between configurations within
89 > an ensemble. Thermodynamic properties can be calculated from both
90 > techniques; but because of the random nature of Monte Carlo, only
91 > molecular dynamics can be used to investigate dynamical
92 > quantities. The research presented in the following chapters utilized
93 > molecular dynamics near exclusively, so we will present a general
94 > introduction to molecular dynamics. There are several resources
95 > available for those desiring a more in-depth presentation of either of
96 > these techniques.\cite{Allen87,Frenkel02,Leach01}
97 >
98 > \section{\label{sec:MolecularDynamics}Molecular Dynamics}
99 >
100 > As stated above, in molecular dynamics we focus on evolving
101 > configurations of molecules over time. In order to use this as a tool
102 > for understanding experiments and testing theories, we want the
103 > configuration to evolve in a manner that mimics real molecular
104 > systems. To do this, we start with clarifying what we know about a
105 > given configuration of particles at time $t_1$, basically that each
106 > particle in the configuration has a position ($\mathbf{q}$) and velocity
107 > ($\dot{\mathbf{q}}$). We now want to know what the configuration will be at
108 > time $t_2$. To find out, we need the classical equations of
109 > motion, and one useful formulation of them is the Lagrangian form.
110 >
111 > The Lagrangian ($L$) is a function of the positions and velocities that
112 > takes the form,
113 > \begin{equation}
114 > L = K - V,
115 > \label{eq:lagrangian}
116 > \end{equation}
117 > where $K$ is the kinetic energy and $V$ is the potential energy. We
118 > can use Hamilton's principle, which states that the integral of the
119 > Lagrangian over time has a stationary value for the correct path of
120 > motion, to say that the variation of the integral of the Lagrangian
121 > over time is zero,\cite{Tolman38}
122 > \begin{equation}
123 > \delta\int_{t_1}^{t_2}L(\mathbf{q},\dot{\mathbf{q}})dt = 0.
124 > \end{equation}
125 > The variation can be transferred to the variables that make up the
126 > Lagrangian,
127 > \begin{equation}
128 > \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\sum_{i=1}^{3N}\left(
129 >        \frac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{q}_i}\delta \mathbf{q}_i
130 >        + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\mathbf{q}}_i}\delta
131 >                \dot{\mathbf{q}}_i\right)dt = 0.
132 > \end{equation}
133 > Using the fact that $\dot{\mathbf{q}}$ is the derivative of
134 > $\mathbf{q}$ with respect to time and integrating the second partial
135 > derivative in the parenthesis by parts, this equation simplifies to
136 > \begin{equation}
137 > \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\sum_{i=1}^{3N}\left(
138 >        \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\mathbf{q}}_i}
139 >        - \frac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{q}_i}\right)
140 >                \delta {\mathbf{q}}_i dt = 0,
141 > \end{equation}
142 > and since each variable is independent, we can separate the
143 > contribution from each of the variables:
144 > \begin{equation}
145 > \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\mathbf{q}}_i}
146 >        - \frac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{q}_i} = 0
147 >                \quad\quad(i=1,2,\dots,3N).
148 > \label{eq:formulation}
149 > \end{equation}
150 > To obtain the classical equations of motion for the particles, we can
151 > substitute equation (\ref{eq:lagrangian}) into the above equation with
152 > $m\dot{\mathbf{r}}^2/2$ for the kinetic energy, giving
153 > \begin{equation}
154 > \frac{d}{dt}(m\dot{\mathbf{r}})+\frac{dV}{d\mathbf{r}}=0,
155 > \end{equation}
156 > or more recognizably,
157 > \begin{equation}
158 > \mathbf{f} = m\mathbf{a},
159 > \end{equation}
160 > where $\mathbf{f} = -dV/d\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{a} =
161 > d^2\mathbf{r}/dt^2$. This Lagrangian formulation shown in equation
162 > (\ref{eq:formulation}) is generalized, and it can be used to determine
163 > equations of motion in forms outside of the typical Cartesian case
164 > shown here.
165 >
166 > \subsection{\label{sec:Verlet}Verlet Integration}
167 >
168 > In order to perform molecular dynamics, we need an algorithm that
169 > integrates the equations of motion described above. Ideal algorithms
170 > are both simple in implementation and highly accurate. There have been
171 > a large number of algorithms developed for this purpose; however, for
172 > reasons discussed below, we are going to focus on the Verlet class of
173 > integrators.\cite{Gear66,Beeman76,Berendsen86,Allen87,Verlet67,Swope82}
174 >
175 > In Verlet's original study of computer ``experiments'', he directly
176 > integrated the Newtonian second order differential equation of motion,
177 > \begin{equation}
178 > m\frac{d^2\mathbf{r}_i}{dt^2} = \sum_{j\ne i}\mathbf{f}(r_{ij}),
179 > \end{equation}
180 > with the following simple algorithm:
181 > \begin{equation}
182 > \mathbf{r}_i(t+\delta t) = -\mathbf{r}_i(t-\delta t) + 2\mathbf{r}_i(t)
183 >        + \sum_{j\ne i}\mathbf{f}(r_{ij}(t))\delta t^2,
184 > \label{eq:verlet}
185 > \end{equation}
186 > where $\delta t$ is the time step of integration.\cite{Verlet67} It is
187 > interesting to note that equation (\ref{eq:verlet}) does not include
188 > velocities, and this makes sense since they are not present in the
189 > differential equation. The velocities are necessary for the
190 > calculation of the kinetic energy and can be calculated at each time
191 > step with the equation:
192 > \begin{equation}
193 > \mathbf{v}_i(t) = \frac{\mathbf{r}_i(t+\delta t)-\mathbf{r}_i(t-\delta t)}
194 >                       {2\delta t}.
195 > \end{equation}
196 >
197 > Like the equation of motion it solves, the Verlet algorithm has the
198 > beneficial property of being time-reversible, meaning that you can
199 > integrate the configuration forward and then backward and end up at
200 > the original configuration. Some other methods for integration, like
201 > predictor-corrector methods, lack this property in that they require
202 > higher order information that is discarded after integrating
203 > steps. Another interesting property of this algorithm is that it is
204 > symplectic, meaning that it preserves area in phase-space. Symplectic
205 > algorithms keep the system evolving in the region of phase-space
206 > dictated by the ensemble and enjoy a greater degree of energy
207 > conservation.\cite{Frenkel02}
208 >
209 > While the error in the positions calculated using the Verlet algorithm
210 > is small ($\mathcal{O}(\delta t^4)$), the error in the velocities is
211 > substantially larger ($\mathcal{O}(\delta t^2)$).\cite{Allen87} Swope
212 > {\it et al.}  developed a corrected version of this algorithm, the
213 > `velocity Verlet' algorithm, which improves the error of the velocity
214 > calculation and thus the energy conservation.\cite{Swope82} This
215 > algorithm involves a full step of the positions,
216 > \begin{equation}
217 > \mathbf{r}(t+\delta t) = \mathbf{r}(t) + \delta t\mathbf{v}(t)
218 >                                + \frac{1}{2}\delta t^2\mathbf{a}(t),
219 > \end{equation}
220 > and a half step of the velocities,
221 > \begin{equation}
222 > \mathbf{v}\left(t+\frac{1}{2}\delta t\right) = \mathbf{v}(t)
223 >                                        + \frac{1}{2}\delta t\mathbf{a}(t).
224 > \end{equation}
225 > After forces are calculated at the new positions, the velocities can
226 > be updated to a full step,
227 > \begin{equation}
228 > \mathbf{v}(t+\delta t) = \mathbf{v}\left(t+\frac{1}{2}\delta t\right)
229 >                                + \frac{1}{2}\delta t\mathbf{a}(t+\delta t).
230 > \end{equation}
231 > By integrating in this manner, the error in the velocities reduces to
232 > $\mathcal{O}(\delta t^3)$. It should be noted that the error in the
233 > positions increases to $\mathcal{O}(\delta t^3)$, but the resulting
234 > improvement in the energies coupled with the maintained simplicity,
235 > time-reversibility, and symplectic nature make it an improvement over
236 > the original form.
237 >
238 > \subsection{\label{sec:IntroIntegrate}Rigid Body Motion}
239 >
240 > Rigid bodies are non-spherical particles or collections of particles
241 > (e.g. $\mbox{C}_{60}$) that have a constant internal potential and
242 > move collectively.\cite{Goldstein01} Discounting iterative constraint
243 > procedures like {\sc shake} and {\sc rattle} for approximating rigid
244 > bodies, they are not included in most simulation packages because of
245 > the algorithmic complexity involved in propagating orientational
246 > degrees of freedom.\cite{Ryckaert77,Andersen83,Krautler01} Integrators
247 > which propagate orientational motion with an acceptable level of
248 > energy conservation for molecular dynamics are relatively new
249 > inventions.
250 >
251 > Moving a rigid body involves determination of both the force and
252 > torque applied by the surroundings, which directly affect the
253 > translational and rotational motion in turn. In order to accumulate
254 > the total force on a rigid body, the external forces and torques must
255 > first be calculated for all the internal particles. The total force on
256 > the rigid body is simply the sum of these external forces.
257 > Accumulation of the total torque on the rigid body is more complex
258 > than the force because the torque is applied to the center of mass of
259 > the rigid body. The space-fixed torque on rigid body $i$ is
260 > \begin{equation}
261 > \boldsymbol{\tau}_i=
262 >        \sum_{a}\biggl[(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia}
263 >        + \boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}\biggr],
264 > \label{eq:torqueAccumulate}
265 > \end{equation}
266 > where $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque on and
267 > position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$,
268 > $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$, and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}$ are the force on,
269 > position of, and torque on the component particles.
270 >
271 > The summation of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis. In
272 > order to move between the space fixed and body fixed coordinate axes,
273 > parameters describing the orientation must be maintained for each
274 > rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix ($\mathsf{A}$) can be
275 > described by the three Euler angles ($\phi, \theta,$ and $\psi$),
276 > where the elements of $\mathsf{A}$ are composed of trigonometric
277 > operations involving $\phi, \theta,$ and $\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01}
278 > Direct propagation of the Euler angles has a known $1/\sin\theta$
279 > divergence in the equations of motion for $\phi$ and $\psi$, leading
280 > to numerical instabilities any time one of the directional atoms or
281 > rigid bodies has an orientation near $\theta=0$ or
282 > $\theta=\pi$.\cite{Allen87} One of the most practical ways to avoid
283 > this ``gimbal point'' is to switch to another angular set defining the
284 > orientation of the rigid body near this point.\cite{Barojas73} This
285 > procedure results in additional book-keeping and increased algorithm
286 > complexity. In the search for more elegant alternative methods, Evans
287 > proposed the use of quaternions to describe and propagate
288 > orientational motion.\cite{Evans77}
289 >
290 > The quaternion method for integration involves a four dimensional
291 > representation of the orientation of a rigid
292 > body.\cite{Evans77,Evans77b,Allen87} Thus, the elements of
293 > $\mathsf{A}$ can be expressed as arithmetic operations involving the
294 > four quaternions ($q_0, q_1, q_2,$ and $q_3$),
295 > \begin{equation}
296 > \mathsf{A} = \left( \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l@{\quad}l}
297 > 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) \\
298 > 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) \\
299 > 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 \\
300 > \end{array}\right).
301 > \end{equation}
302 > Integration of the equations of motion involves a series of arithmetic
303 > operations involving the quaternions and angular momenta and leads to
304 > performance enhancements over Euler angles, particularly for very
305 > small systems.\cite{Evans77} This integration method works well for
306 > propagating orientational motion in the canonical ensemble ($NVT$);
307 > however, energy conservation concerns arise when using the simple
308 > quaternion technique under the microcanonical ($NVE$) ensemble.  An
309 > earlier implementation of our simulation code utilized quaternions for
310 > propagation of rotational motion; however, a detailed investigation
311 > showed that they resulted in a steady drift in the total energy,
312 > something that has been observed by Kol {\it et al.} (also see
313 > section~\ref{sec:waterSimMethods}).\cite{Kol97}
314 >
315 > Because of the outlined issues involving integration of the
316 > orientational motion using both Euler angles and quaternions, we
317 > decided to focus on a relatively new scheme that propagates the entire
318 > nine parameter rotation matrix. This techniques is a velocity-Verlet
319 > version of the symplectic splitting method proposed by Dullweber,
320 > Leimkuhler and McLachlan ({\sc dlm}).\cite{Dullweber97} When there are
321 > no directional atoms or rigid bodies present in the simulation, this
322 > integrator becomes the standard velocity-Verlet integrator which is
323 > known to effectively sample the microcanonical ($NVE$)
324 > ensemble.\cite{Frenkel02}
325 >
326 > The key aspect of the integration method proposed by Dullweber
327 > \emph{et al.} is that the entire $3 \times 3$ rotation matrix is
328 > propagated from one time step to the next. In the past, this would not
329 > have been as feasible, since the rotation matrix for a single body has
330 > nine elements compared with the more memory-efficient methods (using
331 > three Euler angles or four quaternions).  Computer memory has become
332 > much less costly in recent years, and this can be translated into
333 > substantial benefits in energy conservation.
334 >
335 > The integration of the equations of motion is carried out in a
336 > velocity-Verlet style two-part algorithm.\cite{Swope82} The first-part
337 > ({\tt moveA}) consists of a half-step ($t + \delta t/2$) of the linear
338 > velocity (${\bf v}$) and angular momenta ({\bf j}) and a full-step ($t
339 > + \delta t$) of the positions ({\bf r}) and rotation matrix,
340 > \begin{equation*}
341 > {\tt moveA} = \left\{\begin{array}{r@{\quad\leftarrow\quad}l}
342 > {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t / 2\right) & {\bf v}(t)
343 >        + \left( {\bf f}(t) / m \right)(\delta t/2), \\
344 > %
345 > {\bf r}(t + \delta t) & {\bf r}(t)
346 >        + {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right)\delta t, \\
347 > %
348 > {\bf j}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right) & {\bf j}(t)
349 >        + \boldsymbol{\tau}^b(t)(\delta t/2), \\
350 > %
351 > \mathsf{A}(t + \delta t) & \mathrm{rotate}\left( {\bf j}
352 >        (t + \delta t / 2)\delta t \cdot
353 >                \overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}^{-1} \right),
354 > \end{array}\right.
355 > \end{equation*}
356 > where $\overleftrightarrow{\mathsf{I}}^{-1}$ is the inverse of the
357 > moment of inertia tensor. The $\mathrm{rotate}$ function is the
358 > product of rotations about the three body-fixed axes,
359 > \begin{equation}
360 > \mathrm{rotate}({\bf a}) = \mathsf{G}_x(a_x / 2) \cdot
361 > \mathsf{G}_y(a_y / 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_z(a_z) \cdot \mathsf{G}_y(a_y /
362 > 2) \cdot \mathsf{G}_x(a_x /2),
363 > \label{eq:dlmTrot}
364 > \end{equation}
365 > where each rotational propagator, $\mathsf{G}_\alpha(\theta)$, rotates
366 > both the rotation matrix ($\mathsf{A}$) and the body-fixed angular
367 > momentum (${\bf j}$) by an angle $\theta$ around body-fixed axis
368 > $\alpha$,
369 > \begin{equation}
370 > \mathsf{G}_\alpha( \theta ) = \left\{
371 > \begin{array}{l@{\quad\leftarrow\quad}l}
372 > \mathsf{A}(t) & \mathsf{A}(0) \cdot \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta)^\textrm{T},\\
373 > {\bf j}(t) & \mathsf{R}_\alpha(\theta) \cdot {\bf j}(0).
374 > \end{array}
375 > \right.
376 > \end{equation}
377 > $\mathsf{R}_\alpha$ is a quadratic approximation to the single-axis
378 > rotation matrix.  For example, in the small-angle limit, the rotation
379 > matrix around the body-fixed x-axis can be approximated as
380 > \begin{equation}
381 > \mathsf{R}_x(\theta) \approx \left(
382 > \begin{array}{ccc}
383 > 1 & 0 & 0 \\
384 > 0 & \frac{1-\theta^2 / 4}{1 + \theta^2 / 4} & -\frac{\theta}{1+\theta^2 / 4} \\
385 > 0 & \frac{\theta}{1+\theta^2 / 4} & \frac{1-\theta^2 / 4}{1 + \theta^2 / 4}
386 > \end{array}
387 > \right).
388 > \end{equation}
389 > The remaining rotations follow in a straightforward manner. As seen
390 > from the form of equation~(\ref{eq:dlmTrot}), the {\sc dlm} method
391 > uses a Trotter factorization of the orientational
392 > propagator.\cite{Trotter59} This has three effects:
393 > \begin{enumerate}
394 > \item the integrator is area-preserving in phase space (i.e. it is
395 > {\it symplectic}),
396 > \item the integrator is time-{\it reversible}, and
397 > \item the error for a single time step is of order
398 > $\mathcal{O}\left(\delta t^3\right)$ for time steps of length $\delta t$.
399 > \end{enumerate}
400 >
401 > After the initial half-step ({\tt moveA}), the forces and torques are
402 > evaluated for all of the particles. Once completed, the velocities can
403 > be advanced to complete the second-half of the two-part algorithm
404 > ({\tt moveB}), resulting an a completed full step of both the
405 > positions and momenta,
406 > \begin{equation*}
407 > {\tt moveB} = \left\{\begin{array}{r@{\quad\leftarrow\quad}l}
408 > {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t \right) &
409 >        {\bf v}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right)
410 >        + \left({\bf f}(t + \delta t) / m \right)(\delta t/2), \\
411 > %
412 > {\bf j}\left(t + \delta t \right) &
413 >        {\bf j}\left(t + \delta t / 2 \right)
414 >        + \boldsymbol{\tau}^b(t + \delta t)(\delta t/2).
415 > \end{array}\right.
416 > \end{equation*}
417 >
418 > The matrix rotations used in the {\sc dlm} method end up being more
419 > costly computationally than the simpler arithmetic quaternion
420 > propagation. With the same time step, a 1024-molecule water simulation
421 > incurs approximately a 10\% increase in computation time using the
422 > {\sc dlm} method in place of quaternions. This cost is more than
423 > justified when comparing the energy conservation achieved by the two
424 > methods. Figure \ref{fig:quatdlm} provides a comparative analysis of
425 > the {\sc dlm} method versus the traditional quaternion scheme.
426 >
427 > \begin{figure}
428 > \centering
429 > \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{./figures/dlmVsQuat.pdf}
430 > \caption[Energy conservation analysis of the {\sc dlm} and quaternion
431 > integration methods]{Analysis of the energy conservation of the {\sc
432 > dlm} and quaternion integration methods.  $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the
433 > linear drift in energy over time and $\delta \mathrm{E}_0$ is the
434 > standard deviation of energy fluctuations around this drift.  All
435 > simulations were of a 1024 SSD water system at 298 K starting from the
436 > same initial configuration. Note that the {\sc dlm} method provides
437 > more than an order-of-magnitude improvement in both the energy drift
438 > and the size of the energy fluctuations when compared with the
439 > quaternion method at any given time step.  At time steps larger than 4
440 > fs, the quaternion scheme resulted in rapidly rising energies which
441 > eventually lead to simulation failure.  Using the {\sc dlm} method,
442 > time steps up to 8 fs can be taken before this behavior is evident.}
443 > \label{fig:quatdlm}
444 > \end{figure}
445 >
446 > In figure \ref{fig:quatdlm}, $\delta \mbox{E}_1$ is a measure of the
447 > linear energy drift in units of $\mbox{kcal mol}^{-1}$ per particle
448 > over a nanosecond of simulation time, and $\delta \mbox{E}_0$ is the
449 > standard deviation of the energy fluctuations in units of $\mbox{kcal
450 > mol}^{-1}$ per particle. In the top plot, it is apparent that the
451 > energy drift is reduced by a significant amount (2 to 3 orders of
452 > magnitude improvement at all tested time steps) by choosing the {\sc
453 > dlm} method over the simple non-symplectic quaternion integration
454 > method.  In addition to this improvement in energy drift, the
455 > fluctuations in the total energy are also dampened by 1 to 2 orders of
456 > magnitude by utilizing the {\sc dlm} method.
457 >
458 > \begin{figure}
459 > \centering
460 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/compCost.pdf}
461 > \caption[Energy drift as a function of required simulation run
462 > time]{Energy drift as a function of required simulation run time.
463 > $\delta \mathrm{E}_1$ is the linear drift in energy over time.
464 > Simulations were performed on a single 2.5 GHz Pentium 4
465 > processor. Simulation time comparisons can be made by tracing
466 > horizontally from one curve to the other. For example, a simulation
467 > that takes 24 hours using the {\sc dlm} method will take roughly
468 > 210 hours using the simple quaternion method if the same degree of
469 > energy conservation is desired.}
470 > \label{fig:cpuCost}
471 > \end{figure}
472 > Although the {\sc dlm} method is more computationally expensive than
473 > the traditional quaternion scheme for propagating of a time step,
474 > consideration of the computational cost for a long simulation with a
475 > particular level of energy conservation is in order.  A plot of energy
476 > drift versus computational cost was generated
477 > (Fig.~\ref{fig:cpuCost}). This figure provides an estimate of the CPU
478 > time required under the two integration schemes for 1 nanosecond of
479 > simulation time for the model 1024-molecule system.  By choosing a
480 > desired energy drift value it is possible to determine the CPU time
481 > required for both methods. If a $\delta \mbox{E}_1$ of
482 > 0.001~kcal~mol$^{-1}$ per particle is desired, a nanosecond of
483 > simulation time will require ~19 hours of CPU time with the {\sc dlm}
484 > integrator, while the quaternion scheme will require ~154 hours of CPU
485 > time. This demonstrates the computational advantage of the {\sc dlm}
486 > integration scheme.
487 >
488 > \section{Accumulating Interactions}
489 >
490 > In the force calculation between {\tt moveA} and {\tt moveB} mentioned
491 > in section \ref{sec:IntroIntegrate}, we need to accumulate the
492 > potential and forces (and torques if the particle is a rigid body or
493 > multipole) on each particle from their surroundings. This can quickly
494 > become a cumbersome task for large systems since the number of pair
495 > interactions increases by $\mathcal{O}(N(N-1)/2)$ if you accumulate
496 > interactions between all particles in the system. (Note the
497 > utilization of Newton's third law to reduce the interaction number
498 > from $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$.) The case of periodic boundary conditions
499 > further complicates matters by turning the finite system into an
500 > infinitely repeating one. Fortunately, we can reduce the scale of this
501 > problem by using spherical cutoff methods.
502 >
503 > \begin{figure}
504 > \centering
505 > \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{./figures/sphericalCut.pdf}
506 > \caption{When using a spherical cutoff, only particles within a chosen
507 > cutoff radius distance, $R_\textrm{c}$, of the central particle are
508 > included in the pairwise summation. This reduces a problem that scales
509 > by $\sim\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ to one that scales by $\sim\mathcal{O}(N)$.}
510 > \label{fig:sphereCut}
511 > \end{figure}
512 > With spherical cutoffs, rather than accumulating the full set of
513 > interactions between all particles in the simulation, we only
514 > explicitly consider interactions between particles separated by less
515 > than a specified cutoff radius distance, $R_\textrm{c}$, (see figure
516 > \ref{fig:sphereCut}). This reduces the scaling of the interaction to
517 > $\mathcal{O}(N\cdot\textrm{c})$, where `c' is a value that depends on
518 > the size of $R_\textrm{c}$ (c $\approx R_\textrm{c}^3$). Determination
519 > of which particles are within the cutoff is also an issue, because
520 > this process requires a full loop over all $N(N-1)/2$ pairs. To reduce
521 > the this expense, we can use neighbor lists.\cite{Verlet67,Thompson83}
522 > With neighbor lists, we have a second list of particles built from a
523 > list radius $R_\textrm{l}$, which is larger than $R_\textrm{c}$. Once
524 > any particle within $R_\textrm{l}$ moves half the distance of
525 > $R_\textrm{l}-R_\textrm{c}$ (the ``skin'' thickness), we rebuild the
526 > list with the full $N(N-1)/2$ loop.\cite{Verlet67} With an appropriate
527 > skin thickness, these updates are only performed every $\sim$20 time
528 > steps, significantly reducing the time spent on pair-list bookkeeping
529 > operations.\cite{Allen87} If these neighbor lists are utilized, it is
530 > important that these list updates occur regularly. Incorrect
531 > application of this technique leads to non-physical dynamics, such as
532 > the ``flying block of ice'' behavior for which improper neighbor list
533 > handling was identified a one of the possible
534 > causes.\cite{Harvey98,Sagui99}
535 >
536 > \subsection{Correcting Cutoff Discontinuities}
537 > \begin{figure}
538 > \centering
539 > \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{./figures/ljCutoffSquare.pdf}
540 > \caption{The common methods to smooth the potential discontinuity
541 > introduced when using a cutoff include a shifted potential, a shifted
542 > force, and a switching function. The shifted potential and shifted
543 > force both lift the whole potential so that it zeroes at
544 > $R_\textrm{c}$, thereby reducing the strength of the interaction. The
545 > (cubic) switching function only alters the potential in the switching
546 > region in order to smooth out the discontinuity.}
547 > \label{fig:ljCutoff}
548 > \end{figure}
549 > As the distance between a pair of particles fluctuates around
550 > $R_\textrm{c}$, there will be sudden discontinuous jumps in the
551 > potential (and forces) due to their inclusion and exclusion from the
552 > interaction loop. In order to prevent heating and poor energy
553 > conservation in the simulations, this discontinuity needs to be
554 > smoothed out. There are several ways to modify the potential function
555 > to eliminate these discontinuties, and the easiest methods is shifting
556 > the potential. To shift the potential, we simply subtract out the
557 > value we calculate at $R_\textrm{c}$ from the whole potential. The
558 > shifted form of the Lennard-Jones potential is
559 > \begin{equation}
560 > V_\textrm{SLJ} = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad\quad}l}
561 >        V_\textrm{LJ}(r_{ij}) - V_\textrm{LJ}(R_\textrm{c}) & r_{ij} < R_\textrm{c}, \\
562 >        0 & r_{ij} \geqslant R_\textrm{c},
563 > \end{array}\right.
564 > \end{equation}
565 > where
566 > \begin{equation}
567 > V_\textrm{LJ}(r_{ij}) =
568 >        4\epsilon\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12} -
569 >        \left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^6\right].
570 > \end{equation}
571 > In figure \ref{fig:ljCutoff}, the shifted form of the potential
572 > reaches zero at the cutoff radius at the expense of the correct
573 > magnitude inside $R_\textrm{c}$. This correction method also does
574 > nothing to correct the discontinuity in the forces. We can account for
575 > this force discontinuity by shifting in the by applying the shifting
576 > in the forces as well as in the potential via
577 > \begin{equation}
578 > V_\textrm{SFLJ} = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad\quad}l}
579 >        V_\textrm{LJ}({r_{ij}}) - V_\textrm{LJ}(R_\textrm{c}) -
580 >                \left(\frac{d V(r_{ij})}{d r_{ij}}\right)_{r_{ij}=R_\textrm{c}}
581 >                (r_{ij} - R_\textrm{c}) & r_{ij} < R_\textrm{c}, \\
582 >        0 & r_{ij} \geqslant R_\textrm{c}.
583 > \end{array}\right.
584 > \end{equation}
585 > The forces are continuous with this potential; however, the inclusion
586 > of the derivative term distorts the potential even further than the
587 > simple shifting as shown in figure \ref{fig:ljCutoff}. The method for
588 > correcting the discontinuity which results in the smallest
589 > perturbation in both the potential and the forces is the use of a
590 > switching function. The cubic switching function,
591 > \begin{equation}
592 > S(r) = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad\quad}l}
593 >        1 & r_{ij} \leqslant R_\textrm{sw}, \\
594 >        \frac{(R_\textrm{c} + 2r_{ij} - 3R_\textrm{sw})
595 >                (R_\textrm{c} - r_{ij})^2}{(R_\textrm{c} - R_\textrm{sw})^3}
596 >                & R_\textrm{sw} < r_{ij} \leqslant R_\textrm{c}, \\
597 >        0 & r_{ij} > R_\textrm{c},
598 >        \end{array}\right.
599 > \end{equation}
600 > is sufficient to smooth the potential (again, see figure
601 > \ref{fig:ljCutoff}) and the forces by only perturbing the potential in
602 > the switching region. If smooth second derivatives are required, a
603 > higher order polynomial switching function (i.e. fifth order
604 > polynomial) can be used.\cite{Andrea83,Leach01} It should be noted
605 > that the higher the order of the polynomial, the more abrupt the
606 > switching transition.
607 >
608 > \subsection{\label{sec:LJCorrections}Long-Range Interaction Corrections}
609 >
610 > While a good approximation, accumulating interactions only from nearby
611 > particles can lead to some issues, because particles at distances
612 > greater than $R_\textrm{c}$ do still have a small effect. For
613 > instance, while the strength of the Lennard-Jones interaction is quite
614 > weak at $R_\textrm{c}$ in figure \ref{fig:ljCutoff}, we are discarding
615 > all of the attractive interactions that extend out to extremely long
616 > distances. Thus, the potential is a little too high and the pressure
617 > on the central particle from the surroundings is a little too low. For
618 > homogeneous Lennard-Jones systems, we can correct for this effect by
619 > assuming a uniform density and integrating the missing part,
620 > \begin{equation}
621 > V_\textrm{full}(r_{ij}) \approx V_\textrm{c}
622 >                + 2\pi N\rho\int^\infty_{R_\textrm{c}}r^2V_\textrm{LJ}(r)dr,
623 > \end{equation}
624 > where $V_\textrm{c}$ is the truncated Lennard-Jones
625 > potential.\cite{Allen87} Like the potential, other properties can be
626 > corrected by integration over the relevant function. Note that with
627 > heterogeneous systems, this correction breaks down because the density
628 > is no longer uniform.
629 >
630 > Correcting long-range electrostatic interactions is a topic of great
631 > importance in the field of molecular simulations. There have been
632 > several techniques developed to address this issue, like the Ewald
633 > summation and the reaction field technique. An in-depth analysis of
634 > this problem, as well as useful corrective techniques, is presented in
635 > chapter \ref{chap:electrostatics}.
636 >
637 > \subsection{Periodic Boundary Conditions}
638 >
639 > In typical molecular dynamics simulations there are no restrictions
640 > placed on the motion of particles outside of what the inter-particle
641 > interactions dictate. This means that if a particle collides with
642 > other particles, it is free to move away from the site of the
643 > collision. If we consider the entire system as a collection of
644 > particles, they are not confined by walls of the ``simulation box''
645 > and can freely move away from the other particles. With no boundary
646 > considerations, particles moving outside of the simulation box
647 > enter a vacuum. This is correct behavior for cluster simulations in a
648 > vacuum; however, if we want to simulate bulk or spatially infinite
649 > systems, we need to use periodic boundary conditions.
650 >
651 > \begin{figure}
652 > \centering
653 > \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{./figures/periodicImage.pdf}
654 > \caption{With periodic boundary conditions imposed, when particles
655 > move out of one side the simulation box, they wrap back in the
656 > opposite side. In this manner, a finite system of particles behaves as
657 > an infinite system.}
658 > \label{fig:periodicImage}
659 > \end{figure}
660 > In periodic boundary conditions, as a particle moves outside one wall
661 > of the simulation box, the coordinates are remapped such that the
662 > particle enters the opposing side of the box. This process is easy to
663 > visualize in two dimensions as shown in figure \ref{fig:periodicImage}
664 > and can occur in three dimensions, though it is not as easy to
665 > visualize. Remapping the actual coordinates of the particles can be
666 > problematic in that the we are restricting the distance a particle can
667 > move from it's point of origin to a diagonal of the simulation
668 > box. Thus, even though we are not confining the system with hard
669 > walls, we are confining the particle coordinates to a particular
670 > region in space. To avoid this ``soft'' confinement, it is common
671 > practice to allow the particle coordinates to expand in an
672 > unrestricted fashion while calculating interactions using a wrapped
673 > set of ``minimum image'' coordinates. These coordinates need not be
674 > stored because they are easily calculated while determining particle
675 > distances.
676 >
677 > \section{Calculating Properties}
678 >
679 > In order to use simulations to model experimental processes and
680 > evaluate theories, we need to be able to extract properties from the
681 > results. In experiments, we can measure thermodynamic properties such
682 > as the pressure and free energy. In computer simulations, we can
683 > calculate properties from the motion and configuration of particles in
684 > the system and make connections between these properties and the
685 > experimental thermodynamic properties through statistical mechanics.
686 >
687 > The work presented in the later chapters use the canonical ($NVT$),
688 > isobaric-isothermal ($NPT$), and microcanonical ($NVE$) statistical
689 > mechanical ensembles. The different ensembles lend themselves to more
690 > effectively calculating specific properties. For instance, if we
691 > concerned ourselves with the calculation of dynamic properties, which
692 > are dependent upon the motion of the particles, it is better to choose
693 > an ensemble that does not add artificial motions to keep properties
694 > like the temperature or pressure constant. In this case, the $NVE$
695 > ensemble would be the most appropriate choice. In chapter
696 > \ref{chap:ice}, we discuss calculating free energies, which are
697 > non-mechanical thermodynamic properties, and these calculations also
698 > depend on the chosen ensemble.\cite{Allen87} The Helmholtz free energy
699 > ($A$) depends on the $NVT$ partition function ($Q_{NVT}$),
700 > \begin{equation}
701 > A = -k_\textrm{B}T\ln Q_{NVT},
702 > \end{equation}
703 > while the Gibbs free energy ($G$) depends on the $NPT$ partition
704 > function ($Q_{NPT}$),
705 > \begin{equation}
706 > G = -k_\textrm{B}T\ln Q_{NPT}.  
707 > \end{equation}
708 > It is also useful to note that the conserved quantities of the $NVT$
709 > and $NPT$ ensembles are related to the Helmholtz and Gibbs free
710 > energies respectively.\cite{Melchionna93}
711 >
712 > Integrating the equations of motion is a simple method to obtain a
713 > sequence of configurations that sample the chosen ensemble. For each
714 > of these configurations, we can calculate an instantaneous value for a
715 > chosen property like the density in the $NPT$ ensemble, where the
716 > volume is allowed to fluctuate. The density for the simulation is
717 > calculated from an average over the densities for the individual
718 > configurations. Since the configurations from the integration process
719 > are related to one another by the time evolution of the interactions,
720 > this average is technically a time average. In calculating
721 > thermodynamic properties, we would actually prefer an ensemble average
722 > that is representative of all accessible states of the system. We can
723 > calculate thermodynamic properties from the time average by taking
724 > advantage of the ergodic hypothesis, which states that for a
725 > sufficiently chaotic system, and over a long enough period of time,
726 > the time and ensemble averages are the same.
727 >
728 > In addition to the average, the fluctuations of a particular property
729 > can be determined via the standard deviation. Not only are
730 > fluctuations useful for determining the spread of values around the
731 > average and the error in the calculation of the value, they are also
732 > useful for measuring various thermodynamic properties in computer
733 > simulations. In section \ref{sec:t5peThermo}, we use fluctuations in
734 > properties like the enthalpy and volume to calculate other
735 > thermodynamic properties, such as the constant pressure heat capacity
736 > and the isothermal compressibility.
737 >
738 > \section{OOPSE}
739 >
740 > In the following chapters, the above techniques are all utilized in
741 > the study of molecular systems. There are a number of excellent
742 > simulation packages available, both free and commercial, which
743 > incorporate many of these
744 > methods.\cite{Brooks83,MacKerell98,Pearlman95,Berendsen95,Lindahl01,Smith96,Ponder87}
745 > Because of our interest in rigid body dynamics, point multipoles, and
746 > systems where the orientational degrees of freedom cannot be handled
747 > using the common constraint procedures (like {\sc shake}), the
748 > majority of the following work was performed using {\sc oopse}, the
749 > object-oriented parallel simulation engine.\cite{Meineke05} The {\sc
750 > oopse} package started out as a collection of separate programs
751 > written within our group, and has developed into one of the few
752 > parallel molecular dynamics packages capable of accurately integrating
753 > rigid bodies and point multipoles. This simulation package is
754 > open-source software, available to anyone interested in performing
755 > molecular dynamics simulations. More information about {\sc oopse} can
756 > be found in reference \cite{Meineke05} or at the {\tt
757 > http://oopse.org} website.
758 >
759 >

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines