trunk/mattDisertation/Introduction.tex



\chapter{\label{chapt:intro}Introduction and Theoretical Background}


\section{\label{introSec:theory}Theoretical Background}

The techniques used in the course of this research fall under the two
main classes of molecular simulation: Molecular Dynamics and Monte
Carlo. Molecular Dynamic simulations integrate the equations of motion
for a given system of particles, allowing the researher to gain
insight into the time dependent evolution of a system. Diffusion
phenomena are readily studied with this simulation technique, making
Molecular Dynamics the main simulation technique used in this
research. Other aspects of the research fall under the Monte Carlo
class of simulations. In Monte Carlo, the configuration space
available to the collection of particles is sampled stochastichally,
or randomly. Each configuration is chosen with a given probability
based on the Maxwell Boltzman distribution. These types of simulations
are best used to probe properties of a system that are only dependent
only on the state of the system. Structural information about a system
is most readily obtained through these types of methods.

Although the two techniques employed seem dissimilar, they are both
linked by the overarching principles of Statistical
Thermodynamics. Statistical Thermodynamics governs the behavior of
both classes of simulations and dictates what each method can and
cannot do. When investigating a system, one most first analyze what
thermodynamic properties of the system are being probed, then chose
which method best suits that objective.

\subsection{\label{introSec:statThermo}Statistical Thermodynamics}

ergodic hypothesis

enesemble averages

\subsection{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations}

The Monte Carlo method was developed by Metropolis and Ulam for their
work in fissionable material.\cite{metropolis:1949} The method is so
named, because it heavily uses random numbers in its
solution.\cite{allen87:csl} The Monte Carlo method allows for the
solution of integrals through the stochastic sampling of the values
within the integral. In the simplest case, the evaluation of an
integral would follow a brute force method of
sampling.\cite{Frenkel1996} Consider the following single dimensional
integral:
\begin{equation}
I = f(x)dx
\label{eq:MCex1}
\end{equation}
The equation can be recast as:
\begin{equation}
I = (b-a)<f(x)>
\label{eq:MCex2}
\end{equation}
Where $<f(x)>$ is the unweighted average over the interval
$[a,b]$. The calculation of the integral could then be solved by
randomly choosing points along the interval $[a,b]$ and calculating
the value of $f(x)$ at each point. The accumulated average would then
approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infintely
large.

However, in Statistical Mechanics, one is typically interested in
integrals of the form:
\begin{equation}
<A> = \frac{A}{exp^{-\beta}}
\label{eq:mcEnsAvg}
\end{equation}
Where $r^N$ stands for the coordinates of all $N$ particles and $A$ is
some observable that is only dependent on position. $<A>$ is the
ensemble average of $A$ as presented in
Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}. Because $A$ is independent of
momentum, the momenta contribution of the integral can be factored
out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of the brute
force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
results. Due to the Boltzman weighting of this integral, most random
configurations will have a near zero contribution to the ensemble
average. This is where a importance sampling comes into
play.\cite{allen87:csl}

Importance Sampling is a method where one selects a distribution from
which the random configurations are chosen in order to more
efficiently calculate the integral.\cite{Frenkel1996} Consider again
Eq.~\ref{eq:MCex1} rewritten to be:
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
Where $fix$ is an arbitrary probability distribution in $x$.  If one
conducts $fix$ trials selecting a random number, $fix$, from the
distribution $fix$ on the interval $[a,b]$, then Eq.~\ref{fix} becomes
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
Looking at Eq.~ref{fix}, and realizing
\begin {equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
The ensemble average can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
Appllying Eq.~ref{fix} one obtains
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
By selecting $fix$ to be $fix$ Eq.~ref{fix} becomes
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
The difficulty is selecting points $fix$ such that they are sampled
from the distribution $fix$.  A solution was proposed by Metropolis et
al.\cite{fix} which involved the use of a Markov chain whose limiting
distribution was $fix$.

\subsection{Markov Chains}

A Markov chain is a chain of states satisfying the following
conditions:\cite{fix}
\begin{itemize}
\item The outcome of each trial depends only on the outcome of the previous trial.
\item Each trial belongs to a finite set of outcomes called the state space.
\end{itemize}
If given two configuartions, $fix$ and $fix$, $fix$ and $fix$ are the
probablilities of being in state $fix$ and $fix$ respectively.
Further, the two states are linked by a transition probability, $fix$,
which is the probability of going from state $m$ to state $n$.

The transition probability is given by the following:
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
Where $fix$ is the probability of attempting the move $fix$, and $fix$
is the probability of accepting the move $fix$.  Defining a
probability vector, $fix$, such that
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
a transition matrix $fix$ can be defined, whose elements are $fix$,
for each given transition.  The limiting distribution of the Markov
chain can then be found by applying the transition matrix an infinite
number of times to the distribution vector.
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}

The limiting distribution of the chain is independent of the starting
distribution, and successive applications of the transition matrix
will only yield the limiting distribution again.
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}

\subsection{fix}

In the Metropolis method \cite{fix} Eq.~ref{fix} is solved such that
$fix$ matches the Boltzman distribution of states.  The method
accomplishes this by imposing the strong condition of microscopic
reversibility on the equilibrium distribution.  Meaning, that at
equilibrium the probability of going from $m$ to $n$ is the same as
going from $n$ to $m$.
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
Further, $fix$ is chosen to be a symetric matrix in the Metropolis
method.  Using Eq.~\ref{fix}, Eq.~\ref{fix} becomes
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
For a Boltxman limiting distribution
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
This allows for the following set of acceptance rules be defined:
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}

Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{fix} the Metropolis method
proceeds as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item Generate an initial configuration $fix$ which has some finite probability in $fix$.
\item Modify $fix$, to generate configuratioon $fix$.
\item If configuration $n$ lowers the energy of the system, accept the move with unity ($fix$ becomes $fix$).  Otherwise accept with probability $fix$.
\item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of intereest.
\item Repeat from step 2 until average converges.
\end{itemize}
One important note is that the average is accumulated whether the move
is accepted or not, this ensures proper weighting of the average.
Using Eq.~\ref{fix} it becomes clear that the accumulated averages are
the ensemble averages, as this method ensures that the limiting
distribution is the Boltzman distribution.

\subsection{\label{introSec:md}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}

The main simulation tool used in this research is Molecular Dynamics.
Molecular Dynamics is when the equations of motion for a system are
integrated in order to obtain information about both the positions and
momentum of a system, allowing the calculation of not only
configurational observables, but momenta dependent ones as well:
diffusion constants, velocity auto correlations, folding/unfolding
events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity, Eq.~\ref{fix}, the
average of these observables over the time period of the simulation
are taken to be the ensemble averages for the system.

The choice of when to use molecular dynamics over Monte Carlo
techniques, is normally decided by the observables in which the
researcher is interested.  If the observabvles depend on momenta in
any fashion, then the only choice is molecular dynamics in some form.
However, when the observable is dependent only on the configuration,
then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficent.

The focus of research in the second half of this dissertation is
centered around the dynamic properties of phospholipid bilayers,
making molecular dynamics key in the simulation of those properties.

\subsection{Molecular dynamics Algorithm}

To illustrate how the molecular dynamics technique is applied, the
following sections will describe the sequence involved in a
simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} deals with the initialization of a
simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} discusses issues involved with the
calculation of the forces.  Sec.~\ref{fix} concludes the algorithm
discussion with the integration of the equations of motion. \cite{fix}

\subsection{initialization}

When selecting the initial configuration for the simulation it is
important to consider what dynamics one is hoping to observe.
Ch.~\ref{fix} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
phospholipid membranes.  Therefore in these simulations initial
positions were selected that in some cases dispersed the lipids in
water, and in other cases structured the lipids into preformed
bilayers.  Important considerations at this stage of the simulation are:
\begin{itemize}
\item There are no major overlaps of molecular or atomic orbitals
\item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not gie the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
\item It is also sometimes desireable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
\end{itemize}

The first point is important due to the amount of potential energy
generated by having two particles too close together.  If overlap
occurs, the first evaluation of forces will return numbers so large as
to render the numerical integration of teh motion meaningless.  The
second consideration keeps the system from drifting or rotating as a
whole.  This arises from the fact that most simulations are of systems
in equilibrium in the absence of outside forces.  Therefore any net
movement would be unphysical and an artifact of the simulation method
used.  The final point addresses teh selection of the magnitude of the
initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convienient to use
this opportunity to scale the amount of kinetic energy to reflect the
desired thermal distribution of the system.  However, it must be noted
that most systems will require further velocity rescaling after the
first few initial simulation steps due to either loss or gain of
kinetic energy from energy stored in potential degrees of freedom.

\subsection{Force Evaluation}

The evaluation of forces is the most computationally expensive portion
of a given molecular dynamics simulation.  This is due entirely to the
evaluation of long range forces in a simulation, typically pair-wise.
These forces are most commonly the Van der Waals force, and sometimes
Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $fix$
pairs to be evaluated, where $n$ is the number of particles in the
system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $fix$, making large
simulations prohibitive in the absence of any computation saving
techniques.

Another consideration one must resolve, is that in a given simulation
a disproportionate number of the particles will feel the effects of
the surface. \cite{fix} For a cubic system of 1000 particles arranged
in a $10x10x10$ cube, 488 particles will be exposed to the surface.
Unless one is simulating an isolated particle group in a vacuum, the
behavior of the system will be far from the desired bulk
charecteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the use of
periodic boundary images. \cite{fix}

The technique involves the use of an algorithm that replicates the
simulation box on an infinite lattice in cartesian space.  Any given
particle leaving the simulation box on one side will have an image of
itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{fix}).
\begin{equation}
EQ Here
\end{equation}
In addition, this sets that any given particle pair has an image, real
or periodic, within $fix$ of each other.  A discussion of the method
used to calculate the periodic image can be found in Sec.\ref{fix}.

Returning to the topic of the computational scale of the force
evaluation, the use of periodic boundary conditions requires that a
cutoff radius be employed.  Using a cutoff radius improves the
efficiency of the force evaluation, as particles farther than a
predetermined distance, $fix$, are not included in the
calculation. \cite{fix} In a simultation with periodic images, $fix$
has a maximum value of $fix$.  Fig.~\ref{fix} illustrates how using an
$fix$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no $fix$ at
all, the corners of the simulation box are unequally weighted due to
the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$, or $z$ directions past a
disance of $fix$.

With the use of an $fix$, however, comes a discontinuity in the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{fix}).


\section{\label{introSec:chapterLayout}Chapter Layout}

\subsection{\label{introSec:RSA}Random Sequential Adsorption}

\subsection{\label{introSec:OOPSE}The OOPSE Simulation Package}

\subsection{\label{introSec:bilayers}A Mesoscale Model for Phospholipid Bilayers}
Revision:	956
Committed:	Sun Jan 18 19:10:32 2004 UTC (21 years, 3 months ago) by mmeineke
Content type:	application/x-tex
File size:	13845 byte(s)
Log Message:	added in changes to the Monte carlo andMolecular dynamics section
#	Content
1
2
3	\chapter{\label{chapt:intro}Introduction and Theoretical Background}
4
5
6
7	\section{\label{introSec:theory}Theoretical Background}
8
9	The techniques used in the course of this research fall under the two
10	main classes of molecular simulation: Molecular Dynamics and Monte
11	Carlo. Molecular Dynamic simulations integrate the equations of motion
12	for a given system of particles, allowing the researher to gain
13	insight into the time dependent evolution of a system. Diffusion
14	phenomena are readily studied with this simulation technique, making
15	Molecular Dynamics the main simulation technique used in this
16	research. Other aspects of the research fall under the Monte Carlo
17	class of simulations. In Monte Carlo, the configuration space
18	available to the collection of particles is sampled stochastichally,
19	or randomly. Each configuration is chosen with a given probability
20	based on the Maxwell Boltzman distribution. These types of simulations
21	are best used to probe properties of a system that are only dependent
22	only on the state of the system. Structural information about a system
23	is most readily obtained through these types of methods.
24
25	Although the two techniques employed seem dissimilar, they are both
26	linked by the overarching principles of Statistical
27	Thermodynamics. Statistical Thermodynamics governs the behavior of
28	both classes of simulations and dictates what each method can and
29	cannot do. When investigating a system, one most first analyze what
30	thermodynamic properties of the system are being probed, then chose
31	which method best suits that objective.
32
33	\subsection{\label{introSec:statThermo}Statistical Thermodynamics}
34
35	ergodic hypothesis
36
37	enesemble averages
38
39	\subsection{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations}
40
41	The Monte Carlo method was developed by Metropolis and Ulam for their
42	work in fissionable material.\cite{metropolis:1949} The method is so
43	named, because it heavily uses random numbers in its
44	solution.\cite{allen87:csl} The Monte Carlo method allows for the
45	solution of integrals through the stochastic sampling of the values
46	within the integral. In the simplest case, the evaluation of an
47	integral would follow a brute force method of
48	sampling.\cite{Frenkel1996} Consider the following single dimensional
49	integral:
50	\begin{equation}
51	I = f(x)dx
52	\label{eq:MCex1}
53	\end{equation}
54	The equation can be recast as:
55	\begin{equation}
56	I = (b-a)<f(x)>
57	\label{eq:MCex2}
58	\end{equation}
59	Where $<f(x)>$ is the unweighted average over the interval
60	$[a,b]$. The calculation of the integral could then be solved by
61	randomly choosing points along the interval $[a,b]$ and calculating
62	the value of $f(x)$ at each point. The accumulated average would then
63	approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infintely
64	large.
65
66	However, in Statistical Mechanics, one is typically interested in
67	integrals of the form:
68	\begin{equation}
69	<A> = \frac{A}{exp^{-\beta}}
70	\label{eq:mcEnsAvg}
71	\end{equation}
72	Where $r^N$ stands for the coordinates of all $N$ particles and $A$ is
73	some observable that is only dependent on position. $<A>$ is the
74	ensemble average of $A$ as presented in
75	Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}. Because $A$ is independent of
76	momentum, the momenta contribution of the integral can be factored
77	out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of the brute
78	force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
79	results. Due to the Boltzman weighting of this integral, most random
80	configurations will have a near zero contribution to the ensemble
81	average. This is where a importance sampling comes into
82	play.\cite{allen87:csl}
83
84	Importance Sampling is a method where one selects a distribution from
85	which the random configurations are chosen in order to more
86	efficiently calculate the integral.\cite{Frenkel1996} Consider again
87	Eq.~\ref{eq:MCex1} rewritten to be:
88	\begin{equation}
89	EQ Here
90	\end{equation}
91	Where $fix$ is an arbitrary probability distribution in $x$. If one
92	conducts $fix$ trials selecting a random number, $fix$, from the
93	distribution $fix$ on the interval $[a,b]$, then Eq.~\ref{fix} becomes
94	\begin{equation}
95	EQ Here
96	\end{equation}
97	Looking at Eq.~ref{fix}, and realizing
98	\begin {equation}
99	EQ Here
100	\end{equation}
101	The ensemble average can be rewritten as
102	\begin{equation}
103	EQ Here
104	\end{equation}
105	Appllying Eq.~ref{fix} one obtains
106	\begin{equation}
107	EQ Here
108	\end{equation}
109	By selecting $fix$ to be $fix$ Eq.~ref{fix} becomes
110	\begin{equation}
111	EQ Here
112	\end{equation}
113	The difficulty is selecting points $fix$ such that they are sampled
114	from the distribution $fix$. A solution was proposed by Metropolis et
115	al.\cite{fix} which involved the use of a Markov chain whose limiting
116	distribution was $fix$.
117
118	\subsection{Markov Chains}
119
120	A Markov chain is a chain of states satisfying the following
121	conditions:\cite{fix}
122	\begin{itemize}
123	\item The outcome of each trial depends only on the outcome of the previous trial.
124	\item Each trial belongs to a finite set of outcomes called the state space.
125	\end{itemize}
126	If given two configuartions, $fix$ and $fix$, $fix$ and $fix$ are the
127	probablilities of being in state $fix$ and $fix$ respectively.
128	Further, the two states are linked by a transition probability, $fix$,
129	which is the probability of going from state $m$ to state $n$.
130
131	The transition probability is given by the following:
132	\begin{equation}
133	EQ Here
134	\end{equation}
135	Where $fix$ is the probability of attempting the move $fix$, and $fix$
136	is the probability of accepting the move $fix$. Defining a
137	probability vector, $fix$, such that
138	\begin{equation}
139	EQ Here
140	\end{equation}
141	a transition matrix $fix$ can be defined, whose elements are $fix$,
142	for each given transition. The limiting distribution of the Markov
143	chain can then be found by applying the transition matrix an infinite
144	number of times to the distribution vector.
145	\begin{equation}
146	EQ Here
147	\end{equation}
148
149	The limiting distribution of the chain is independent of the starting
150	distribution, and successive applications of the transition matrix
151	will only yield the limiting distribution again.
152	\begin{equation}
153	EQ Here
154	\end{equation}
155
156	\subsection{fix}
157
158	In the Metropolis method \cite{fix} Eq.~ref{fix} is solved such that
159	$fix$ matches the Boltzman distribution of states. The method
160	accomplishes this by imposing the strong condition of microscopic
161	reversibility on the equilibrium distribution. Meaning, that at
162	equilibrium the probability of going from $m$ to $n$ is the same as
163	going from $n$ to $m$.
164	\begin{equation}
165	EQ Here
166	\end{equation}
167	Further, $fix$ is chosen to be a symetric matrix in the Metropolis
168	method. Using Eq.~\ref{fix}, Eq.~\ref{fix} becomes
169	\begin{equation}
170	EQ Here
171	\end{equation}
172	For a Boltxman limiting distribution
173	\begin{equation}
174	EQ Here
175	\end{equation}
176	This allows for the following set of acceptance rules be defined:
177	\begin{equation}
178	EQ Here
179	\end{equation}
180
181	Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{fix} the Metropolis method
182	proceeds as follows
183	\begin{itemize}
184	\item Generate an initial configuration $fix$ which has some finite probability in $fix$.
185	\item Modify $fix$, to generate configuratioon $fix$.
186	\item If configuration $n$ lowers the energy of the system, accept the move with unity ($fix$ becomes $fix$). Otherwise accept with probability $fix$.
187	\item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of intereest.
188	\item Repeat from step 2 until average converges.
189	\end{itemize}
190	One important note is that the average is accumulated whether the move
191	is accepted or not, this ensures proper weighting of the average.
192	Using Eq.~\ref{fix} it becomes clear that the accumulated averages are
193	the ensemble averages, as this method ensures that the limiting
194	distribution is the Boltzman distribution.
195
196	\subsection{\label{introSec:md}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
197
198	The main simulation tool used in this research is Molecular Dynamics.
199	Molecular Dynamics is when the equations of motion for a system are
200	integrated in order to obtain information about both the positions and
201	momentum of a system, allowing the calculation of not only
202	configurational observables, but momenta dependent ones as well:
203	diffusion constants, velocity auto correlations, folding/unfolding
204	events, etc. Due to the principle of ergodicity, Eq.~\ref{fix}, the
205	average of these observables over the time period of the simulation
206	are taken to be the ensemble averages for the system.
207
208	The choice of when to use molecular dynamics over Monte Carlo
209	techniques, is normally decided by the observables in which the
210	researcher is interested. If the observabvles depend on momenta in
211	any fashion, then the only choice is molecular dynamics in some form.
212	However, when the observable is dependent only on the configuration,
213	then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficent.
214
215	The focus of research in the second half of this dissertation is
216	centered around the dynamic properties of phospholipid bilayers,
217	making molecular dynamics key in the simulation of those properties.
218
219	\subsection{Molecular dynamics Algorithm}
220
221	To illustrate how the molecular dynamics technique is applied, the
222	following sections will describe the sequence involved in a
223	simulation. Sec.~\ref{fix} deals with the initialization of a
224	simulation. Sec.~\ref{fix} discusses issues involved with the
225	calculation of the forces. Sec.~\ref{fix} concludes the algorithm
226	discussion with the integration of the equations of motion. \cite{fix}
227
228	\subsection{initialization}
229
230	When selecting the initial configuration for the simulation it is
231	important to consider what dynamics one is hoping to observe.
232	Ch.~\ref{fix} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
233	phospholipid membranes. Therefore in these simulations initial
234	positions were selected that in some cases dispersed the lipids in
235	water, and in other cases structured the lipids into preformed
236	bilayers. Important considerations at this stage of the simulation are:
237	\begin{itemize}
238	\item There are no major overlaps of molecular or atomic orbitals
239	\item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not gie the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
240	\item It is also sometimes desireable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
241	\end{itemize}
242
243	The first point is important due to the amount of potential energy
244	generated by having two particles too close together. If overlap
245	occurs, the first evaluation of forces will return numbers so large as
246	to render the numerical integration of teh motion meaningless. The
247	second consideration keeps the system from drifting or rotating as a
248	whole. This arises from the fact that most simulations are of systems
249	in equilibrium in the absence of outside forces. Therefore any net
250	movement would be unphysical and an artifact of the simulation method
251	used. The final point addresses teh selection of the magnitude of the
252	initial velocities. For many simulations it is convienient to use
253	this opportunity to scale the amount of kinetic energy to reflect the
254	desired thermal distribution of the system. However, it must be noted
255	that most systems will require further velocity rescaling after the
256	first few initial simulation steps due to either loss or gain of
257	kinetic energy from energy stored in potential degrees of freedom.
258
259	\subsection{Force Evaluation}
260
261	The evaluation of forces is the most computationally expensive portion
262	of a given molecular dynamics simulation. This is due entirely to the
263	evaluation of long range forces in a simulation, typically pair-wise.
264	These forces are most commonly the Van der Waals force, and sometimes
265	Coulombic forces as well. For a pair-wise force, there are $fix$
266	pairs to be evaluated, where $n$ is the number of particles in the
267	system. This leads to the calculations scaling as $fix$, making large
268	simulations prohibitive in the absence of any computation saving
269	techniques.
270
271	Another consideration one must resolve, is that in a given simulation
272	a disproportionate number of the particles will feel the effects of
273	the surface. \cite{fix} For a cubic system of 1000 particles arranged
274	in a $10x10x10$ cube, 488 particles will be exposed to the surface.
275	Unless one is simulating an isolated particle group in a vacuum, the
276	behavior of the system will be far from the desired bulk
277	charecteristics. To offset this, simulations employ the use of
278	periodic boundary images. \cite{fix}
279
280	The technique involves the use of an algorithm that replicates the
281	simulation box on an infinite lattice in cartesian space. Any given
282	particle leaving the simulation box on one side will have an image of
283	itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{fix}).
284	\begin{equation}
285	EQ Here
286	\end{equation}
287	In addition, this sets that any given particle pair has an image, real
288	or periodic, within $fix$ of each other. A discussion of the method
289	used to calculate the periodic image can be found in Sec.\ref{fix}.
290
291	Returning to the topic of the computational scale of the force
292	evaluation, the use of periodic boundary conditions requires that a
293	cutoff radius be employed. Using a cutoff radius improves the
294	efficiency of the force evaluation, as particles farther than a
295	predetermined distance, $fix$, are not included in the
296	calculation. \cite{fix} In a simultation with periodic images, $fix$
297	has a maximum value of $fix$. Fig.~\ref{fix} illustrates how using an
298	$fix$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no $fix$ at
299	all, the corners of the simulation box are unequally weighted due to
300	the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$, or $z$ directions past a
301	disance of $fix$.
302
303	With the use of an $fix$, however, comes a discontinuity in the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{fix}).
304
305
306	\section{\label{introSec:chapterLayout}Chapter Layout}
307
308	\subsection{\label{introSec:RSA}Random Sequential Adsorption}
309
310	\subsection{\label{introSec:OOPSE}The OOPSE Simulation Package}
311
312	\subsection{\label{introSec:bilayers}A Mesoscale Model for Phospholipid Bilayers}