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

Comparing trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/electrostaticMethods.tex (file contents):
Revision 2629 by chrisfen, Thu Mar 16 03:48:32 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2637 by chrisfen, Sun Mar 19 02:48:19 2006 UTC

# Line 2 | Line 2
2   %\documentclass[aps,prb,preprint]{revtex4}
3   \documentclass[11pt]{article}
4   \usepackage{endfloat}
5 < \usepackage{amsmath}
5 > \usepackage{amsmath,bm}
6   \usepackage{amssymb}
7   \usepackage{epsf}
8   \usepackage{times}
# Line 81 | Line 81 | impractical task to perform these calculations.
81   impractical task to perform these calculations.
82  
83   \subsection{The Ewald Sum}
84 < blah blah blah Ewald Sum Important blah blah blah
84 > The complete accumulation electrostatic interactions in a system with periodic boundary conditions (PBC) requires the consideration of the effect of all charges within a simulation box, as well as those in the periodic replicas,
85 > \begin{equation}
86 > V_\textrm{elec} = \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{\mathbf{n}}}^\prime \left[ \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^N \phi\left( \mathbf{r}_{ij} + L\mathbf{n},\bm{\Omega}_i,\bm{\Omega}_j\right) \right],
87 > \label{eq:PBCSum}
88 > \end{equation}
89 > where the sum over $\mathbf{n}$ is a sum over all periodic box replicas
90 > with integer coordinates $\mathbf{n} = (l,m,n)$, and the prime indicates
91 > $i = j$ are neglected for $\mathbf{n} = 0$.\cite{deLeeuw80} Within the
92 > sum, $N$ is the number of electrostatic particles, $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is
93 > $\mathbf{r}_j - \mathbf{r}_i$, $L$ is the cell length, $\bm{\Omega}_{i,j}$ are
94 > the Euler angles for $i$ and $j$, and $\phi$ is Poisson's equation
95 > ($\phi(\mathbf{r}_{ij}) = q_i q_j |\mathbf{r}_{ij}|^{-1}$ for charge-charge
96 > interactions). In the case of monopole electrostatics,
97 > eq. (\ref{eq:PBCSum}) is conditionally convergent and is discontiuous
98 > for non-neutral systems.
99  
100 + This electrostatic summation problem was originally studied by Ewald
101 + for the case of an infinite crystal.\cite{Ewald21}. The approach he
102 + took was to convert this conditionally convergent sum into two
103 + absolutely convergent summations: a short-ranged real-space summation
104 + and a long-ranged reciprocal-space summation,
105 + \begin{equation}
106 + \begin{split}
107 + V_\textrm{elec} = \frac{1}{2}& \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^N \Biggr[ q_i q_j\Biggr( {\sum_{\mathbf{n}}}^\prime \frac{\textrm{erfc}\left( \alpha|\mathbf{r}_{ij}+\mathbf{n}|\right)}{|\mathbf{r}_{ij}+\mathbf{n}|} \\ &+ \frac{1}{\pi L^3}\sum_{\mathbf{k}\ne 0}\frac{4\pi^2}{|\mathbf{k}|^2} \exp{\left(-\frac{\pi^2|\mathbf{k}|^2}{\alpha^2}\right) \cos\left(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij}\right)}\Biggr)\Biggr] \\ &- \frac{\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\sum_{i=1}^N q_i^2 + \frac{2\pi}{(2\epsilon_\textrm{S}+1)L^3}\left|\sum_{i=1}^N q_i\mathbf{r}_i\right|^2,
108 + \end{split}
109 + \label{eq:EwaldSum}
110 + \end{equation}
111 + where $\alpha$ is a damping parameter, or separation constant, with
112 + units of \AA$^{-1}$, $\mathbf{k}$ are the reciprocal vectors and equal
113 + $2\pi\mathbf{n}/L^2$, and $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$ is the dielectric
114 + constant of the encompassing medium. The final two terms of
115 + eq. (\ref{eq:EwaldSum}) are a particle-self term and a dipolar term
116 + for interacting with a surrounding dielectric.\cite{Allen87} This
117 + dipolar term was neglected in early applications in molecular
118 + simulations,\cite{Brush66,Woodcock71} until it was introduced by de
119 + Leeuw {\it et al.} to address situations where the unit cell has a
120 + dipole moment and this dipole moment gets magnified through
121 + replication of the periodic images.\cite{deLeeuw80,Smith81} If this
122 + term is taken to be zero, the system is using conducting boundary
123 + conditions, $\epsilon_{\rm S} = \infty$. Figure
124 + \ref{fig:ewaldTime} shows how the Ewald sum has been applied over
125 + time.  Initially, due to the small size of systems, the entire
126 + simulation box was replicated to convergence.  Currently, we balance a
127 + spherical real-space cutoff with the reciprocal sum and consider the
128 + surrounding dielectric.
129   \begin{figure}
130   \centering
131   \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{./ewaldProgression.pdf}
# Line 96 | Line 139 | a surrounding dielectric term is included.}
139   \label{fig:ewaldTime}
140   \end{figure}
141  
142 + The Ewald summation in the straight-forward form is an
143 + $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ algorithm.  The separation constant $(\alpha)$
144 + plays an important role in the computational cost balance between the
145 + direct and reciprocal-space portions of the summation.  The choice of
146 + the magnitude of this value allows one to select whether the
147 + real-space or reciprocal space portion of the summation is an
148 + $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ calcualtion (with the other being
149 + $\mathscr{O}(N)$).\cite{Sagui99} With appropriate choice of $\alpha$
150 + and thoughtful algorithm development, this cost can be brought down to
151 + $\mathscr{O}(N^{3/2})$.\cite{Perram88} The typical route taken to
152 + reduce the cost of the Ewald summation further is to set $\alpha$ such
153 + that the real-space interactions decay rapidly, allowing for a short
154 + spherical cutoff, and then optimize the reciprocal space summation.
155 + These optimizations usually involve the utilization of the fast
156 + Fourier transform (FFT),\cite{Hockney81} leading to the
157 + particle-particle particle-mesh (P3M) and particle mesh Ewald (PME)
158 + methods.\cite{Shimada93,Luty94,Luty95,Darden93,Essmann95} In these
159 + methods, the cost of the reciprocal-space portion of the Ewald
160 + summation is from $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ down to $\mathscr{O}(N \log N)$.
161 +
162 + These developments and optimizations have led the use of the Ewald
163 + summation to become routine in simulations with periodic boundary
164 + conditions. However, in certain systems the intrinsic three
165 + dimensional periodicity can prove to be problematic, such as two
166 + dimensional surfaces and membranes.  The Ewald sum has been
167 + reformulated to handle 2D
168 + systems,\cite{Parry75,Parry76,Heyes77,deLeeuw79,Rhee89}, but the new
169 + methods have been found to be computationally
170 + expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Yeh99} Inclusion of a correction term in the
171 + full Ewald summation is a possible direction for enabling the handling
172 + of 2D systems and the inclusion of the optimizations described
173 + previously.\cite{Yeh99}
174 +
175 + Several studies have recognized that the inherent periodicity in the
176 + Ewald sum can also have an effect on systems that have the same
177 + dimensionality.\cite{Roberts94,Roberts95,Luty96,Hunenberger99a,Hunenberger99b,Weber00}
178 + Good examples are solvated proteins kept at high relative
179 + concentration due to the periodicity of the electrostatics.  In these
180 + systems, the more compact folded states of a protein can be
181 + artificially stabilized by the periodic replicas introduced by the
182 + Ewald summation.\cite{Weber00} Thus, care ought to be taken when
183 + considering the use of the Ewald summation where the intrinsic
184 + perodicity may negatively affect the system dynamics.
185 +
186 +
187   \subsection{The Wolf and Zahn Methods}
188   In a recent paper by Wolf \textit{et al.}, a procedure was outlined
189   for the accurate accumulation of electrostatic interactions in an
190 < efficient pairwise fashion.\cite{Wolf99} Wolf \textit{et al.} observed
191 < that the electrostatic interaction is effectively short-ranged in
192 < condensed phase systems and that neutralization of the charge
193 < contained within the cutoff radius is crucial for potential
194 < stability. They devised a pairwise summation method that ensures
195 < charge neutrality and gives results similar to those obtained with
196 < the Ewald summation.  The resulting shifted Coulomb potential
197 < (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfPot}) includes image-charges subtracted out through
198 < placement on the cutoff sphere and a distance-dependent damping
199 < function (identical to that seen in the real-space portion of the
200 < Ewald sum) to aid convergence
190 > efficient pairwise fashion and lacks the inherent periodicity of the
191 > Ewald summation.\cite{Wolf99} Wolf \textit{et al.} observed that the
192 > electrostatic interaction is effectively short-ranged in condensed
193 > phase systems and that neutralization of the charge contained within
194 > the cutoff radius is crucial for potential stability. They devised a
195 > pairwise summation method that ensures charge neutrality and gives
196 > results similar to those obtained with the Ewald summation.  The
197 > resulting shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfPot}) includes
198 > image-charges subtracted out through placement on the cutoff sphere
199 > and a distance-dependent damping function (identical to that seen in
200 > the real-space portion of the Ewald sum) to aid convergence
201   \begin{equation}
202   V_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij})= \frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow R_\textrm{c}}\left\{\frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}\right\}.
203   \label{eq:WolfPot}
# Line 126 | Line 214 | procedure gives an expression for the forces,
214   derivative of this potential prior to evaluation of the limit.  This
215   procedure gives an expression for the forces,
216   \begin{equation}
217 < F_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij}) = q_i q_j\left\{-\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r^2_{ij}}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r_{ij}^2)}}{r_{ij}}\right]+\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}}\right)}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right]\right\},
217 > F_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij}) = q_i q_j\left\{\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r^2_{ij}}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2r_{ij}^2\right)}}{r_{ij}}\right]-\left[\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}}\right)}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right]\right\},
218   \label{eq:WolfForces}
219   \end{equation}
220   that incorporates both image charges and damping of the electrostatic
# Line 206 | Line 294 | of the unshifted potential itself (when inside the cut
294   The forces associated with the shifted potential are simply the forces
295   of the unshifted potential itself (when inside the cutoff sphere),
296   \begin{equation}
297 < F_{\textrm{SP}} = \left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right),
297 > f_{\textrm{SP}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right),
298   \end{equation}
299   and are zero outside.  Inside the cutoff sphere, the forces associated
300   with the shifted force form can be written,
301   \begin{equation}
302 < F_{\textrm{SF}} = \left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right) - \left(\frac{d
302 > f_{\textrm{SF}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right) + \left(\frac{d
303   v(r)}{dr} \right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}.
304   \end{equation}
305  
# Line 223 | Line 311 | al.}'s undamped prescription:
311   then the Shifted Potential ({\sc sp}) forms will give Wolf {\it et
312   al.}'s undamped prescription:
313   \begin{equation}
314 < V_\textrm{SP}(r) =
314 > v_\textrm{SP}(r) =
315   q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad
316   r\leqslant R_\textrm{c},
317 < \label{eq:WolfSP}
317 > \label{eq:SPPot}
318   \end{equation}
319   with associated forces,
320   \begin{equation}
321 < F_\textrm{SP}(r) = q_iq_j\left(-\frac{1}{r^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
322 < \label{eq:FWolfSP}
321 > f_\textrm{SP}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
322 > \label{eq:SPForces}
323   \end{equation}
324   These forces are identical to the forces of the standard Coulomb
325   interaction, and cutting these off at $R_c$ was addressed by Wolf
# Line 245 | Line 333 | will give,
333   The shifted force ({\sc sf}) form using the normal Coulomb potential
334   will give,
335   \begin{equation}
336 < V_\textrm{SF}(r) = q_iq_j\left[\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}+\left(\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right)(r-R_\textrm{c})\right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
336 > v_\textrm{SF}(r) = q_iq_j\left[\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}+\left(\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right)(r-R_\textrm{c})\right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
337   \label{eq:SFPot}
338   \end{equation}
339   with associated forces,
340   \begin{equation}
341 < F_\textrm{SF}(r =  q_iq_j\left(-\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
341 > f_\textrm{SF}(r) =  q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r^2}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
342   \label{eq:SFForces}
343   \end{equation}
344   This formulation has the benefits that there are no discontinuities at
# Line 264 | Line 352 | Wolf \textit{et al.} originally discussed the energeti
352   to gain functionality in dynamics simulations.
353  
354   Wolf \textit{et al.} originally discussed the energetics of the
355 < shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfSP}), and they found that
355 > shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:SPPot}), and they found that
356   it was still insufficient for accurate determination of the energy
357   with reasonable cutoff distances.  The calculated Madelung energies
358   fluctuate around the expected value with increasing cutoff radius, but
# Line 279 | Line 367 | v(r) = \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r},
367   v(r) = \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r},
368   \label{eq:dampCoulomb}
369   \end{equation}
370 < the shifted potential (Eq. (\ref{eq:WolfSP})) can be recovered
371 < using eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}),
370 > the shifted potential (Eq. (\ref{eq:SPPot})) can be reacquired using
371 > eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}),
372   \begin{equation}
373 < v_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r)}{r}-\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha R_\textrm{c})}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c},
373 > v_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r}-\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\textrm{c}\right)}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c},
374   \label{eq:DSPPot}
375   \end{equation}
376   with associated forces,
377   \begin{equation}
378 < f_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j\left(-\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r)}{r^2}-\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r^2)}}{r}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
378 > f_{\textrm{DSP}}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2r^2\right)}}{r}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
379   \label{eq:DSPForces}
380   \end{equation}
381   Again, this damped shifted potential suffers from a discontinuity and
# Line 300 | Line 388 | v_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&\frac{\mathrm{erfc
388   \label{eq:DSFPot}
389   \end{split}
390   \end{equation}
391 < The derivative of the above potential gives the following forces,
391 > The derivative of the above potential will lead to the following forces,
392   \begin{equation}
393   \begin{split}
394 < f_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&-\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r)}{r^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{(-\alpha^2r^2)}}{r}\right) \\ &\left.+\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}})}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right)\right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
394 > f_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2r^2\right)}}{r}\right) \\ &\left.-\left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_{\textrm{c}}\right)}{R_{\textrm{c}}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp{\left(-\alpha^2R_{\textrm{c}}^2\right)}}{R_{\textrm{c}}}\right)\right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
395   \label{eq:DSFForces}
396   \end{split}
397   \end{equation}
398 + If the damping parameter $(\alpha)$ is chosen to be zero, the undamped
399 + case, eqs. (\ref{eq:SPPot}-\ref{eq:SFForces}) are correctly recovered
400 + from eqs. (\ref{eq:DSPPot}-\ref{eq:DSFForces}).
401  
402 < This new {\sc sf} potential is similar to equation
403 < \ref{eq:ZahnPot} derived by Zahn \textit{et al.}; however, there are
404 < two important differences.\cite{Zahn02} First, the $v_\textrm{c}$ term
405 < from eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}) is equal to
406 < eq. (\ref{eq:dampCoulomb}) with $r$ replaced by $R_\textrm{c}$.  This
407 < term is {\it not} present in the Zahn potential, resulting in a
408 < potential discontinuity as particles cross $R_\textrm{c}$.  Second,
409 < the sign of the derivative portion is different.  The missing
410 < $v_\textrm{c}$ term would not affect molecular dynamics simulations
411 < (although the computed energy would be expected to have sudden jumps
412 < as particle distances crossed $R_c$).  The sign problem would be a
413 < potential source of errors, however.  In fact, it introduces a
414 < discontinuity in the forces at the cutoff, because the force function
415 < is shifted in the wrong direction and doesn't cross zero at
325 < $R_\textrm{c}$.  
402 > This new {\sc sf} potential is similar to equation \ref{eq:ZahnPot}
403 > derived by Zahn \textit{et al.}; however, there are two important
404 > differences.\cite{Zahn02} First, the $v_\textrm{c}$ term from
405 > eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}) is equal to eq. (\ref{eq:dampCoulomb})
406 > with $r$ replaced by $R_\textrm{c}$.  This term is {\it not} present
407 > in the Zahn potential, resulting in a potential discontinuity as
408 > particles cross $R_\textrm{c}$.  Second, the sign of the derivative
409 > portion is different.  The missing $v_\textrm{c}$ term would not
410 > affect molecular dynamics simulations (although the computed energy
411 > would be expected to have sudden jumps as particle distances crossed
412 > $R_c$).  The sign problem would be a potential source of errors,
413 > however.  In fact, it introduces a discontinuity in the forces at the
414 > cutoff, because the force function is shifted in the wrong direction
415 > and doesn't cross zero at $R_\textrm{c}$.
416  
417   Eqs. (\ref{eq:DSFPot}) and (\ref{eq:DSFForces}) result in an
418   electrostatic summation method that is continuous in both the
# Line 359 | Line 449 | and to incorporate their effect, a method like Reactio
449  
450   Group-based cutoffs neglect the surroundings beyond $R_\textrm{c}$,
451   and to incorporate their effect, a method like Reaction Field ({\sc
452 < rf}) can be used.  The orignal theory for {\sc rf} was originally
452 > rf}) can be used.  The original theory for {\sc rf} was originally
453   developed by Onsager,\cite{Onsager36} and it was applied in
454   simulations for the study of water by Barker and Watts.\cite{Barker73}
455   In application, it is simply an extension of the group-based cutoff
456   method where the net dipole within the cutoff sphere polarizes an
457   external dielectric, which reacts back on the central dipole.  The
458   same switching function considerations for group-based cutoffs need to
459 < made for {\sc rf}, with the additional prespecification of a
459 > made for {\sc rf}, with the additional pre-specification of a
460   dielectric constant.
461  
462   \section{Methods}
# Line 570 | Line 660 | tolerance (typically less than $1 \times 10^{-4}$ kcal
660   the energies and forces calculated.  Typical molecular mechanics
661   packages default this to a value dependent on the cutoff radius and a
662   tolerance (typically less than $1 \times 10^{-4}$ kcal/mol).  Smaller
663 < tolerances are typically associated with increased accuracy in the
664 < real-space portion of the summation.\cite{Essmann95} The default
665 < TINKER tolerance of $1 \times 10^{-8}$ kcal/mol was used in all SPME
663 > tolerances are typically associated with increased accuracy, but this
664 > usually means more time spent calculating the reciprocal-space portion
665 > of the summation.\cite{Perram88,Essmann95} The default TINKER
666 > tolerance of $1 \times 10^{-8}$ kcal/mol was used in all SPME
667   calculations, resulting in Ewald Coefficients of 0.4200, 0.3119, and
668   0.2476 \AA$^{-1}$ for cutoff radii of 9, 12, and 15 \AA\ respectively.
669  
# Line 851 | Line 942 | required for accurate reproduction of crystal dynamics
942   \begin{figure}
943   \centering
944   \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{./comboSquare.pdf}
945 < \caption{Upper: Zoomed inset from figure \ref{fig:methodPS}.  As the damping value for the {\sc sf} potential increases, the low-frequency peaks red-shift.  Lower: Low-frequency correlated motions for NaCl crystals at 1000 K when using SPME and a simple damped Coulombic sum with damping coefficients ($\alpha$) ranging from 0.15 to 0.3 \AA$^{-1}$.  As $\alpha$ increases, the peaks are red-shifted toward and eventually beyond the values given by SPME.  The larger $\alpha$ values weaken the real-space electrostatics, explaining this shift towards less strongly correlated motions in the crystal.}
945 > \caption{Regions of spectra showing the low-frequency correlated motions for NaCl crystals at 1000 K using various electrostatic summation methods.  The upper plot is a zoomed inset from figure \ref{fig:methodPS}.  As the damping value for the {\sc sf} potential increases, the low-frequency peaks red-shift.  The lower plot is of spectra when using SPME and a simple damped Coulombic sum with damping coefficients ($\alpha$) ranging from 0.15 to 0.3 \AA$^{-1}$.  As $\alpha$ increases, the peaks are red-shifted toward and eventually beyond the values given by SPME.  The larger $\alpha$ values weaken the real-space electrostatics, explaining this shift towards less strongly correlated motions in the crystal.}
946   \label{fig:dampInc}
947   \end{figure}
948  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines