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 2641 by chrisfen, Mon Mar 20 15:43:13 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2643 by gezelter, Mon Mar 20 17:32:33 2006 UTC

# Line 65 | Line 65 | In molecular simulations, proper accumulation of the e
65   \section{Introduction}
66  
67   In molecular simulations, proper accumulation of the electrostatic
68 < interactions is considered one of the most essential and
69 < computationally demanding tasks.  The common molecular mechanics force
70 < fields are founded on representation of the atomic sites centered on
71 < full or partial charges shielded by Lennard-Jones type interactions.
72 < This means that nearly every pair interaction involves an
73 < charge-charge calculation.  Coupled with $r^{-1}$ decay, the monopole
74 < interactions quickly become a burden for molecular systems of all
75 < sizes.  For example, in small systems, the electrostatic pair
76 < interaction may not have decayed appreciably within the box length
77 < leading to an effect excluded from the pair interactions within a unit
78 < box.  In large systems, excessively large cutoffs need to be used to
79 < accurately incorporate their effect, and since the computational cost
80 < increases proportionally with the cutoff sphere, it quickly becomes
81 < very time-consuming to perform these calculations.
68 > interactions is essential and is one of the most
69 > computationally-demanding tasks.  The common molecular mechanics force
70 > fields represent atomic sites with full or partial charges protected
71 > by Lennard-Jones (short range) interactions.  This means that nearly
72 > every pair interaction involves a calculation of charge-charge forces.
73 > Coupled with relatively long-ranged $r^{-1}$ decay, the monopole
74 > interactions quickly become the most expensive part of molecular
75 > simulations.  Historically, the electrostatic pair interaction would
76 > not have decayed appreciably within the typical box lengths that could
77 > be feasibly simulated.  In the larger systems that are more typical of
78 > modern simulations, large cutoffs should be used to incorporate
79 > electrostatics correctly.
80  
81 < There have been many efforts to address this issue of both proper and
82 < practical handling of electrostatic interactions, and these have
83 < resulted in the availability of a variety of
84 < techniques.\cite{Roux99,Sagui99,Tobias01} These are typically
85 < classified as implicit methods (i.e., continuum dielectrics, static
86 < dipolar fields),\cite{Born20,Grossfield00} explicit methods (i.e.,
89 < Ewald summations, interaction shifting or
81 > There have been many efforts to address the proper and practical
82 > handling of electrostatic interactions, and these have resulted in a
83 > variety of techniques.\cite{Roux99,Sagui99,Tobias01} These are
84 > typically classified as implicit methods (i.e., continuum dielectrics,
85 > static dipolar fields),\cite{Born20,Grossfield00} explicit methods
86 > (i.e., Ewald summations, interaction shifting or
87   truncation),\cite{Ewald21,Steinbach94} or a mixture of the two (i.e.,
88   reaction field type methods, fast multipole
89   methods).\cite{Onsager36,Rokhlin85} The explicit or mixed methods are
90 < often preferred because they incorporate dynamic solvent molecules in
91 < the system of interest, but these methods are sometimes difficult to
92 < utilize because of their high computational cost.\cite{Roux99} In
93 < addition to this cost, there has been some question of the inherent
94 < periodicity of the explicit Ewald summation artificially influencing
95 < systems dynamics.\cite{Tobias01}
90 > often preferred because they physically incorporate solvent molecules
91 > in the system of interest, but these methods are sometimes difficult
92 > to utilize because of their high computational cost.\cite{Roux99} In
93 > addition to the computational cost, there have been some questions
94 > regarding possible artifacts caused by the inherent periodicity of the
95 > explicit Ewald summation.\cite{Tobias01}
96  
97 < In this paper, we focus on the common mixed and explicit methods of
98 < reaction filed and smooth particle mesh
99 < Ewald\cite{Onsager36,Essmann99} and a new set of shifted methods
100 < devised by Wolf {\it et al.} which we further extend.\cite{Wolf99}
101 < These new methods for handling electrostatics are quite
102 < computationally efficient, since they involve only a simple
103 < modification to the direct pairwise sum, and they lack the added
104 < periodicity of the Ewald sum. Below, these methods are evaluated using
105 < a variety of model systems and comparison methodologies to establish
97 > In this paper, we focus on a new set of shifted methods devised by
98 > Wolf {\it et al.},\cite{Wolf99} which we further extend.  These
99 > methods along with a few other mixed methods (i.e. reaction field) are
100 > compared with the smooth particle mesh Ewald
101 > sum,\cite{Onsager36,Essmann99} which is our reference method for
102 > handling long-range electrostatic interactions. The new methods for
103 > handling electrostatics have the potential to scale linearly with
104 > increasing system size since they involve only a simple modification
105 > to the direct pairwise sum.  They also lack the added periodicity of
106 > the Ewald sum, so they can be used for systems which are non-periodic
107 > or which have one- or two-dimensional periodicity.  Below, these
108 > methods are evaluated using a variety of model systems to establish
109   their usability in molecular simulations.
110  
111   \subsection{The Ewald Sum}
112   The complete accumulation electrostatic interactions in a system with
113   periodic boundary conditions (PBC) requires the consideration of the
114 < effect of all charges within a simulation box, as well as those in the
115 < periodic replicas,
114 > effect of all charges within a (cubic) simulation box as well as those
115 > in the periodic replicas,
116   \begin{equation}
117   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],
118   \label{eq:PBCSum}
# Line 123 | Line 123 | the cell length, $\bm{\Omega}_{i,j}$ are the Euler ang
123   0$.\cite{deLeeuw80} Within the sum, $N$ is the number of electrostatic
124   particles, $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is $\mathbf{r}_j - \mathbf{r}_i$, $L$ is
125   the cell length, $\bm{\Omega}_{i,j}$ are the Euler angles for $i$ and
126 < $j$, and $\phi$ is Poisson's equation ($\phi(\mathbf{r}_{ij}) = q_i
127 < q_j |\mathbf{r}_{ij}|^{-1}$ for charge-charge interactions). In the
128 < case of monopole electrostatics, eq. (\ref{eq:PBCSum}) is
129 < conditionally convergent and is discontinuous for non-neutral systems.
126 > $j$, and $\phi$ is the solution to Poisson's equation
127 > ($\phi(\mathbf{r}_{ij}) = q_i q_j |\mathbf{r}_{ij}|^{-1}$ for
128 > charge-charge interactions). In the case of monopole electrostatics,
129 > eq. (\ref{eq:PBCSum}) is conditionally convergent and is divergent for
130 > non-neutral systems.
131  
132 < This electrostatic summation problem was originally studied by Ewald
132 > The electrostatic summation problem was originally studied by Ewald
133   for the case of an infinite crystal.\cite{Ewald21}. The approach he
134   took was to convert this conditionally convergent sum into two
135   absolutely convergent summations: a short-ranged real-space summation
# Line 140 | Line 141 | where $\alpha$ is a damping parameter, or separation c
141   \label{eq:EwaldSum}
142   \end{equation}
143   where $\alpha$ is a damping parameter, or separation constant, with
144 < units of \AA$^{-1}$, $\mathbf{k}$ are the reciprocal vectors and equal
145 < $2\pi\mathbf{n}/L^2$, and $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$ is the dielectric
146 < constant of the encompassing medium. The final two terms of
144 > units of \AA$^{-1}$, $\mathbf{k}$ are the reciprocal vectors and are
145 > equal to $2\pi\mathbf{n}/L^2$, and $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$ is the
146 > dielectric constant of the surrounding medium. The final two terms of
147   eq. (\ref{eq:EwaldSum}) are a particle-self term and a dipolar term
148   for interacting with a surrounding dielectric.\cite{Allen87} This
149   dipolar term was neglected in early applications in molecular
150   simulations,\cite{Brush66,Woodcock71} until it was introduced by de
151   Leeuw {\it et al.} to address situations where the unit cell has a
152 < dipole moment and this dipole moment gets magnified through
153 < replication of the periodic images.\cite{deLeeuw80,Smith81} If this
154 < term is taken to be zero, the system is using conducting boundary
152 > dipole moment which is magnified through replication of the periodic
153 > images.\cite{deLeeuw80,Smith81} If this term is taken to be zero, the
154 > system is said to be using conducting (or ``tin-foil'') boundary
155   conditions, $\epsilon_{\rm S} = \infty$. Figure
156   \ref{fig:ewaldTime} shows how the Ewald sum has been applied over
157 < time.  Initially, due to the small size of systems, the entire
158 < simulation box was replicated to convergence.  Currently, we balance a
159 < spherical real-space cutoff with the reciprocal sum and consider the
160 < surrounding dielectric.
157 > time.  Initially, due to the small sizes of the systems that could be
158 > feasibly simulated, the entire simulation box was replicated to
159 > convergence.  In more modern simulations, the simulation boxes have
160 > grown large enough that a real-space cutoff could potentially give
161 > convergent behavior.  Indeed, it has often been observed that the
162 > reciprocal-space portion of the Ewald sum can be vanishingly
163 > small compared to the real-space portion.\cite{XXX}
164 >
165   \begin{figure}
166   \centering
167   \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{./ewaldProgression.pdf}
# Line 170 | Line 175 | a surrounding dielectric term is included.}
175   \label{fig:ewaldTime}
176   \end{figure}
177  
178 < The Ewald summation in the straight-forward form is an
179 < $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ algorithm.  The separation constant $(\alpha)$
180 < plays an important role in the computational cost balance between the
181 < direct and reciprocal-space portions of the summation.  The choice of
182 < the magnitude of this value allows one to select whether the
183 < real-space or reciprocal space portion of the summation is an
184 < $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ calculation (with the other being
185 < $\mathscr{O}(N)$).\cite{Sagui99} With appropriate choice of $\alpha$
186 < and thoughtful algorithm development, this cost can be brought down to
187 < $\mathscr{O}(N^{3/2})$.\cite{Perram88} The typical route taken to
188 < reduce the cost of the Ewald summation further is to set $\alpha$ such
189 < that the real-space interactions decay rapidly, allowing for a short
190 < spherical cutoff, and then optimize the reciprocal space summation.
191 < These optimizations usually involve the utilization of the fast
187 < Fourier transform (FFT),\cite{Hockney81} leading to the
178 > The original Ewald summation is an $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ algorithm.  The
179 > separation constant $(\alpha)$ plays an important role in balancing
180 > the computational cost between the direct and reciprocal-space
181 > portions of the summation.  The choice of this value allows one to
182 > select whether the real-space or reciprocal space portion of the
183 > summation is an $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ calculation (with the other being
184 > $\mathscr{O}(N)$).\cite{Sagui99} With the appropriate choice of
185 > $\alpha$ and thoughtful algorithm development, this cost can be
186 > reduced to $\mathscr{O}(N^{3/2})$.\cite{Perram88} The typical route
187 > taken to reduce the cost of the Ewald summation even further is to set
188 > $\alpha$ such that the real-space interactions decay rapidly, allowing
189 > for a short spherical cutoff. Then the reciprocal space summation is
190 > optimized.  These optimizations usually involve utilization of the
191 > fast Fourier transform (FFT),\cite{Hockney81} leading to the
192   particle-particle particle-mesh (P3M) and particle mesh Ewald (PME)
193   methods.\cite{Shimada93,Luty94,Luty95,Darden93,Essmann95} In these
194   methods, the cost of the reciprocal-space portion of the Ewald
195 < summation is from $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ down to $\mathscr{O}(N \log N)$.
195 > summation is reduced from $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ down to $\mathscr{O}(N
196 > \log N)$.
197  
198 < These developments and optimizations have led the use of the Ewald
199 < summation to become routine in simulations with periodic boundary
200 < conditions. However, in certain systems the intrinsic three
201 < dimensional periodicity can prove to be problematic, such as two
202 < dimensional surfaces and membranes.  The Ewald sum has been
203 < reformulated to handle 2D
204 < systems,\cite{Parry75,Parry76,Heyes77,deLeeuw79,Rhee89}, but the new
205 < methods have been found to be computationally
206 < expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Yeh99} Inclusion of a correction term in the
207 < full Ewald summation is a possible direction for enabling the handling
203 < of 2D systems and the inclusion of the optimizations described
204 < previously.\cite{Yeh99}
198 > These developments and optimizations have made the use of the Ewald
199 > summation routine in simulations with periodic boundary
200 > conditions. However, in certain systems, such as vapor-liquid
201 > interfaces and membranes, the intrinsic three-dimensional periodicity
202 > can prove problematic.  The Ewald sum has been reformulated to handle
203 > 2D systems,\cite{Parry75,Parry76,Heyes77,deLeeuw79,Rhee89}, but the
204 > new methods are computationally expensive.\cite{Spohr97,Yeh99}
205 > Inclusion of a correction term in the Ewald summation is a possible
206 > direction for handling 2D systems while still enabling the use of the
207 > modern optimizations.\cite{Yeh99}
208  
209   Several studies have recognized that the inherent periodicity in the
210 < Ewald sum can also have an effect on systems that have the same
211 < dimensionality.\cite{Roberts94,Roberts95,Luty96,Hunenberger99a,Hunenberger99b,Weber00}
212 < Good examples are solvated proteins kept at high relative
213 < concentration due to the periodicity of the electrostatics.  In these
210 > Ewald sum can also have an effect on three-dimensional
211 > systems.\cite{Roberts94,Roberts95,Luty96,Hunenberger99a,Hunenberger99b,Weber00}
212 > Solvated proteins are essentially kept at high concentration due to
213 > the periodicity of the electrostatic summation method.  In these
214   systems, the more compact folded states of a protein can be
215   artificially stabilized by the periodic replicas introduced by the
216 < Ewald summation.\cite{Weber00} Thus, care ought to be taken when
217 < considering the use of the Ewald summation where the intrinsic
218 < periodicity may negatively affect the system dynamics.
216 > Ewald summation.\cite{Weber00} Thus, care must be taken when
217 > considering the use of the Ewald summation where the assumed
218 > periodicity would introduce spurious effects in the system dynamics.
219  
217
220   \subsection{The Wolf and Zahn Methods}
221   In a recent paper by Wolf \textit{et al.}, a procedure was outlined
222   for the accurate accumulation of electrostatic interactions in an
223 < efficient pairwise fashion and lacks the inherent periodicity of the
224 < Ewald summation.\cite{Wolf99} Wolf \textit{et al.} observed that the
225 < electrostatic interaction is effectively short-ranged in condensed
226 < phase systems and that neutralization of the charge contained within
227 < the cutoff radius is crucial for potential stability. They devised a
228 < pairwise summation method that ensures charge neutrality and gives
229 < results similar to those obtained with the Ewald summation.  The
230 < resulting shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfPot}) includes
231 < image-charges subtracted out through placement on the cutoff sphere
232 < and a distance-dependent damping function (identical to that seen in
233 < the real-space portion of the Ewald sum) to aid convergence
223 > efficient pairwise fashion.  This procedure lacks the inherent
224 > periodicity of the Ewald summation.\cite{Wolf99} Wolf \textit{et al.}
225 > observed that the electrostatic interaction is effectively
226 > short-ranged in condensed phase systems and that neutralization of the
227 > charge contained within the cutoff radius is crucial for potential
228 > stability. They devised a pairwise summation method that ensures
229 > charge neutrality and gives results similar to those obtained with the
230 > Ewald summation.  The resulting shifted Coulomb potential
231 > (Eq. \ref{eq:WolfPot}) includes image-charges subtracted out through
232 > placement on the cutoff sphere and a distance-dependent damping
233 > function (identical to that seen in the real-space portion of the
234 > Ewald sum) to aid convergence
235   \begin{equation}
236   V_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij})= \frac{q_i q_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\}.
237   \label{eq:WolfPot}
# Line 255 | Line 258 | the potential are not commensurate.  Attempts to use b
258   force expressions for use in simulations involving water.\cite{Zahn02}
259   In their work, they pointed out that the forces and derivative of
260   the potential are not commensurate.  Attempts to use both
261 < Eqs. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) and (\ref{eq:WolfForces}) together will lead
261 > eqs. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) and (\ref{eq:WolfForces}) together will lead
262   to poor energy conservation.  They correctly observed that taking the
263   limit shown in equation (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) {\it after} calculating the
264   derivatives gives forces for a different potential energy function
265 < than the one shown in Eq. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}).
265 > than the one shown in eq. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}).
266  
267 < Zahn \textit{et al.} proposed a modified form of this ``Wolf summation
268 < method'' as a way to use this technique in Molecular Dynamics
269 < simulations.  Taking the integral of the forces shown in equation
267 < \ref{eq:WolfForces}, they proposed a new damped Coulomb
268 < potential,
267 > Zahn \textit{et al.} introduced a modified form of this summation
268 > method as a way to use the technique in Molecular Dynamics
269 > simulations.  They proposed a new damped Coulomb potential,
270   \begin{equation}
271 < V_{\textrm{Zahn}}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left\{\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}}-\left[\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right]\left(r_{ij}-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\right\}.
271 > V_{\textrm{Zahn}}(r_{ij}) = q_iq_j\left\{\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}}-\left[\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right]\left(r_{ij}-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\right\},
272   \label{eq:ZahnPot}
273   \end{equation}
274 < They showed that this potential does fairly well at capturing the
274 > and showed that this potential does fairly well at capturing the
275   structural and dynamic properties of water compared the same
276   properties obtained using the Ewald sum.
277  
# Line 301 | Line 302 | shifted potential,
302   \textit{et al.}  and Zahn \textit{et al.} by considering the standard
303   shifted potential,
304   \begin{equation}
305 < v_\textrm{SP}(r) =      \begin{cases}
305 > V_\textrm{SP}(r) =      \begin{cases}
306   v(r)-v_\textrm{c} &\quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c} \\ 0 &\quad r >
307   R_\textrm{c}  
308   \end{cases},
# Line 309 | Line 310 | and shifted force,
310   \end{equation}
311   and shifted force,
312   \begin{equation}
313 < v_\textrm{SF}(r) =      \begin{cases}
313 > V_\textrm{SF}(r) =      \begin{cases}
314   v(r)-v_\textrm{c}-\left(\frac{d v(r)}{d r}\right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}(r-R_\textrm{c})
315   &\quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c} \\ 0 &\quad r > R_\textrm{c}
316                                                  \end{cases},
# Line 325 | Line 326 | of the unshifted potential itself (when inside the cut
326   The forces associated with the shifted potential are simply the forces
327   of the unshifted potential itself (when inside the cutoff sphere),
328   \begin{equation}
329 < f_{\textrm{SP}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right),
329 > F_{\textrm{SP}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right),
330   \end{equation}
331   and are zero outside.  Inside the cutoff sphere, the forces associated
332   with the shifted force form can be written,
333   \begin{equation}
334 < f_{\textrm{SF}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right) + \left(\frac{d
334 > F_{\textrm{SF}} = -\left( \frac{d v(r)}{dr} \right) + \left(\frac{d
335   v(r)}{dr} \right)_{r=R_\textrm{c}}.
336   \end{equation}
337  
338 < If the potential ($v(r)$) is taken to be the normal Coulomb potential,
338 > If the potential, $v(r)$, is taken to be the normal Coulomb potential,
339   \begin{equation}
340   v(r) = \frac{q_i q_j}{r},
341   \label{eq:Coulomb}
# Line 342 | Line 343 | al.}'s undamped prescription:
343   then the Shifted Potential ({\sc sp}) forms will give Wolf {\it et
344   al.}'s undamped prescription:
345   \begin{equation}
346 < v_\textrm{SP}(r) =
346 > V_\textrm{SP}(r) =
347   q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R_\textrm{c}}\right) \quad
348   r\leqslant R_\textrm{c},
349   \label{eq:SPPot}
350   \end{equation}
351   with associated forces,
352   \begin{equation}
353 < f_\textrm{SP}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
353 > F_\textrm{SP}(r) = q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right) \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
354   \label{eq:SPForces}
355   \end{equation}
356   These forces are identical to the forces of the standard Coulomb
# Line 364 | Line 365 | will give,
365   The shifted force ({\sc sf}) form using the normal Coulomb potential
366   will give,
367   \begin{equation}
368 < 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}.
368 > 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}.
369   \label{eq:SFPot}
370   \end{equation}
371   with associated forces,
372   \begin{equation}
373 < 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}.
373 > 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}.
374   \label{eq:SFForces}
375   \end{equation}
376   This formulation has the benefits that there are no discontinuities at
377 < the cutoff distance, while the neutralizing image charges are present
378 < in both the energy and force expressions.  It would be simple to add
379 < the self-neutralizing term back when computing the total energy of the
377 > the cutoff radius, while the neutralizing image charges are present in
378 > both the energy and force expressions.  It would be simple to add the
379 > self-neutralizing term back when computing the total energy of the
380   system, thereby maintaining the agreement with the Madelung energies.
381   A side effect of this treatment is the alteration in the shape of the
382   potential that comes from the derivative term.  Thus, a degree of
# Line 383 | Line 384 | Wolf \textit{et al.} originally discussed the energeti
384   to gain functionality in dynamics simulations.
385  
386   Wolf \textit{et al.} originally discussed the energetics of the
387 < shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:SPPot}), and they found that
388 < it was still insufficient for accurate determination of the energy
389 < with reasonable cutoff distances.  The calculated Madelung energies
390 < fluctuate around the expected value with increasing cutoff radius, but
391 < the oscillations converge toward the correct value.\cite{Wolf99} A
387 > shifted Coulomb potential (Eq. \ref{eq:SPPot}) and found that it was
388 > insufficient for accurate determination of the energy with reasonable
389 > cutoff distances.  The calculated Madelung energies fluctuated around
390 > the expected value as the cutoff radius was increased, but the
391 > oscillations converged toward the correct value.\cite{Wolf99} A
392   damping function was incorporated to accelerate the convergence; and
393 < though alternative functional forms could be
393 > though alternative forms for the damping function could be
394   used,\cite{Jones56,Heyes81} the complimentary error function was
395   chosen to mirror the effective screening used in the Ewald summation.
396   Incorporating this error function damping into the simple Coulomb
# Line 398 | Line 399 | v(r) = \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r},
399   v(r) = \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r},
400   \label{eq:dampCoulomb}
401   \end{equation}
402 < the shifted potential (Eq. (\ref{eq:SPPot})) can be reacquired using
402 < eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}),
402 > the shifted potential (eq. (\ref{eq:SPPot})) becomes
403   \begin{equation}
404 < 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},
404 > 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},
405   \label{eq:DSPPot}
406   \end{equation}
407   with associated forces,
408   \begin{equation}
409 < 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}.
409 > 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}.
410   \label{eq:DSPForces}
411   \end{equation}
412 < Again, this damped shifted potential suffers from a discontinuity and
413 < a lack of the image charges in the forces.  To remedy these concerns,
414 < one may derive a {\sc sf} variant by including  the derivative
415 < term in eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}),
412 > Again, this damped shifted potential suffers from a
413 > force-discontinuity at the cutoff radius, and the image charges play
414 > no role in the forces.  To remedy these concerns, one may derive a
415 > {\sc sf} variant by including the derivative term in
416 > eq. (\ref{eq:shiftingForm}),
417   \begin{equation}
418   \begin{split}
419 < v_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r}-\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}} \\ &\left.+\left(\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right)\left(r-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\ \right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
419 > V_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = q_iq_j\Biggr{[}&\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r\right)}{r}-\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}} \\ &\left.+\left(\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2}+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right)\left(r-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\ \right] \quad r\leqslant R_\textrm{c}.
420   \label{eq:DSFPot}
421   \end{split}
422   \end{equation}
423   The derivative of the above potential will lead to the following forces,
424   \begin{equation}
425   \begin{split}
426 < 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}.
426 > 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}.
427   \label{eq:DSFForces}
428   \end{split}
429   \end{equation}
430 < If the damping parameter $(\alpha)$ is chosen to be zero, the undamped
431 < case, eqs. (\ref{eq:SPPot}-\ref{eq:SFForces}) are correctly recovered
432 < from eqs. (\ref{eq:DSPPot}-\ref{eq:DSFForces}).
430 > If the damping parameter $(\alpha)$ is set to zero, the undamped case,
431 > eqs. (\ref{eq:SPPot} through \ref{eq:SFForces}) are correctly
432 > recovered from eqs. (\ref{eq:DSPPot} through \ref{eq:DSFForces}).
433  
434   This new {\sc sf} potential is similar to equation \ref{eq:ZahnPot}
435   derived by Zahn \textit{et al.}; however, there are two important
# Line 440 | Line 441 | would be expected to have sudden jumps as particle dis
441   portion is different.  The missing $v_\textrm{c}$ term would not
442   affect molecular dynamics simulations (although the computed energy
443   would be expected to have sudden jumps as particle distances crossed
444 < $R_c$).  The sign problem would be a potential source of errors,
445 < however.  In fact, it introduces a discontinuity in the forces at the
446 < cutoff, because the force function is shifted in the wrong direction
447 < and doesn't cross zero at $R_\textrm{c}$.
444 > $R_c$).  The sign problem is a potential source of errors, however.
445 > In fact, it introduces a discontinuity in the forces at the cutoff,
446 > because the force function is shifted in the wrong direction and
447 > doesn't cross zero at $R_\textrm{c}$.
448  
449   Eqs. (\ref{eq:DSFPot}) and (\ref{eq:DSFForces}) result in an
450 < electrostatic summation method that is continuous in both the
451 < potential and forces and which incorporates the damping function
452 < proposed by Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf99} In the rest of this
453 < paper, we will evaluate exactly how good these methods ({\sc sp}, {\sc
454 < sf}, damping) are at reproducing the correct electrostatic summation
455 < performed by the Ewald sum.
450 > electrostatic summation method in which the potential and forces are
451 > continuous at the cutoff radius and which incorporates the damping
452 > function proposed by Wolf \textit{et al.}\cite{Wolf99} In the rest of
453 > this paper, we will evaluate exactly how good these methods ({\sc sp},
454 > {\sc sf}, damping) are at reproducing the correct electrostatic
455 > summation performed by the Ewald sum.
456  
457   \subsection{Other alternatives}
458 < In addition to the methods described above, we will consider some
459 < other techniques that commonly get used in molecular simulations.  The
458 > In addition to the methods described above, we considered some other
459 > techniques that are commonly used in molecular simulations.  The
460   simplest of these is group-based cutoffs.  Though of little use for
461 < non-neutral molecules, collecting atoms into neutral groups takes
461 > charged molecules, collecting atoms into neutral groups takes
462   advantage of the observation that the electrostatic interactions decay
463   faster than those for monopolar pairs.\cite{Steinbach94} When
464 < considering these molecules as groups, an orientational aspect is
465 < introduced to the interactions.  Consequently, as these molecular
466 < particles move through $R_\textrm{c}$, the energy will drift upward
467 < due to the anisotropy of the net molecular dipole
468 < interactions.\cite{Rahman71} To maintain good energy conservation,
469 < both the potential and derivative need to be smoothly switched to zero
470 < at $R_\textrm{c}$.\cite{Adams79} This is accomplished using a
471 < switching function,
472 < \begin{equation}
473 < S(r) = \begin{cases} 1 &\quad r\leqslant r_\textrm{sw} \\
473 < \frac{(R_\textrm{c}+2r-3r_\textrm{sw})(R_\textrm{c}-r)^2}{(R_\textrm{c}-r_\textrm{sw})^3} &\quad r_\textrm{sw}<r\leqslant R_\textrm{c} \\
474 < 0 &\quad r>R_\textrm{c}
475 < \end{cases},
476 < \end{equation}
477 < where the above form is for a cubic function.  If a smooth second
478 < derivative is desired, a fifth (or higher) order polynomial can be
479 < used.\cite{Andrea83}
464 > considering these molecules as neutral groups, the relative
465 > orientations of the molecules control the strength of the interactions
466 > at the cutoff radius.  Consequently, as these molecular particles move
467 > through $R_\textrm{c}$, the energy will drift upward due to the
468 > anisotropy of the net molecular dipole interactions.\cite{Rahman71} To
469 > maintain good energy conservation, both the potential and derivative
470 > need to be smoothly switched to zero at $R_\textrm{c}$.\cite{Adams79}
471 > This is accomplished using a standard switching function.  If a smooth
472 > second derivative is desired, a fifth (or higher) order polynomial can
473 > be used.\cite{Andrea83}
474  
475   Group-based cutoffs neglect the surroundings beyond $R_\textrm{c}$,
476 < and to incorporate their effect, a method like Reaction Field ({\sc
477 < rf}) can be used.  The original theory for {\sc rf} was originally
478 < developed by Onsager,\cite{Onsager36} and it was applied in
479 < simulations for the study of water by Barker and Watts.\cite{Barker73}
480 < In application, it is simply an extension of the group-based cutoff
481 < method where the net dipole within the cutoff sphere polarizes an
482 < external dielectric, which reacts back on the central dipole.  The
483 < same switching function considerations for group-based cutoffs need to
484 < made for {\sc rf}, with the additional pre-specification of a
485 < dielectric constant.
476 > and to incorporate the effects of the surroundings, a method like
477 > Reaction Field ({\sc rf}) can be used.  The original theory for {\sc
478 > rf} was originally developed by Onsager,\cite{Onsager36} and it was
479 > applied in simulations for the study of water by Barker and
480 > Watts.\cite{Barker73} In modern simulation codes, {\sc rf} is simply
481 > an extension of the group-based cutoff method where the net dipole
482 > within the cutoff sphere polarizes an external dielectric, which
483 > reacts back on the central dipole.  The same switching function
484 > considerations for group-based cutoffs need to made for {\sc rf}, with
485 > the additional pre-specification of a dielectric constant.
486  
487   \section{Methods}
488  

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines