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

Comparing trunk/oopsePaper/EmpericalEnergy.tex (file contents):
Revision 818 by gezelter, Fri Oct 24 21:27:59 2003 UTC vs.
Revision 932 by chuckv, Tue Jan 13 20:01:19 2004 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1  
2 < \section{The Emperical Energy Functions}
2 > \section{\label{sec:empericalEnergy}The Emperical Energy Functions}
3  
4 < \subsection{Atoms and Molecules}
4 > \subsection{\label{sec:atomsMolecules}Atoms, Molecules and Rigid Bodies}
5  
6   The basic unit of an {\sc oopse} simulation is the atom. The parameters
7   describing the atom are generalized to make the atom as flexible a
# Line 9 | Line 9 | associated with them, often in the form of a dipole. C
9   element, or be used for collections of atoms such as a methyl
10   group. The atoms are also capable of having a directional component
11   associated with them, often in the form of a dipole. Charges on atoms
12 < are not currently suporrted by {\sc oopse}.
12 > are not currently suported by {\sc oopse}.
13  
14   The second most basic building block of a simulation is the
15 < molecule. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to keep track of the atoms
16 < in a simulation in logical manner. This particular unit will store the
17 < identities of all the atoms associated with itself and is responsible
18 < for the evaluation of its own bonded interaction (i.e.~bonds, bends,
19 < and torsions).
15 > molecule. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to keep track of the
16 > atoms in a simulation in logical manner. This particular unit will
17 > store the identities of all the atoms associated with itself and is
18 > responsible for the evaluation of its own bonded interaction
19 > (i.e.~bonds, bends, and torsions).
20 >
21 > As stated previously, one of the features that sets {\sc OOPSE} apart
22 > from most of the current molecular simulation packages is the ability
23 > to handle rigid body dynamics. Rigid bodies are non-spherical
24 > particles or collections of particles that have a constant internal
25 > potential and move collectively.\cite{Goldstein01} They are not
26 > included in most simulation packages because of the need to
27 > consider orientational degrees of freedom and include an integrator
28 > that accurately propagates these motions in time.
29 >
30 > Moving a rigid body involves determination of both the force and
31 > torque applied by the surroundings, which directly affect the
32 > translation and rotation in turn. In order to accumulate the total
33 > force on a rigid body, the external forces must first be calculated
34 > for all the internal particles. The total force on the rigid body is
35 > simply the sum of these external forces.  Accumulation of the total
36 > torque on the rigid body is more complex than the force in that it is
37 > the torque applied on the center of mass that dictates rotational
38 > motion. The summation of this torque is given by
39 > \begin{equation}
40 > \mathbf{\tau}_i=
41 >        \sum_{a}(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia},
42 > \label{eq:torqueAccumulate}
43 > \end{equation}
44 > where $\mathbf{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque about and
45 > position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$
46 > and $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$ are the force on and position of the component
47 > particles of the rigid body.\cite{allen87:csl}
48 >
49 > The application of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of
50 > the rigid body. In order to move between the space fixed and body
51 > fixed coordinate axes, parameters describing the orientation must be
52 > maintained for each rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix
53 > (\textbf{A}) can be described and propagated by the three Euler angles
54 > ($\phi, \theta, \text{and} \psi$), where \textbf{A} is composed of
55 > trigonometric operations involving $\phi, \theta,$ and
56 > $\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid rotational limitations
57 > inherent in using the Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion''
58 > scheme can be used instead, where \textbf{A} is composed of arithmetic
59 > operations involving the four components of a quaternion ($q_0, q_1,
60 > q_2, \text{and} q_3$).\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads
61 > to performance enhancements, particularly for very small
62 > systems.\cite{Evans77}
63 >
64 > {\sc OOPSE} utilizes a relatively new scheme that uses the entire nine
65 > parameter rotation matrix internally. Further discussion on this
66 > choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}.
67 >
68 > \subsection{\label{sec:LJPot}The Lennard Jones Potential}
69 >
70 > The most basic force field implemented in OOPSE is the Lennard-Jones
71 > potential. The Lennard-Jones potential. Which mimics the Van der Waals
72 > interaction at long distances, and uses an emperical repulsion at
73 > short distances. The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
74 > \begin{equation}
75 > V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
76 >        4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[
77 >        \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{12}
78 >        - \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{6}
79 >        \biggr]
80 > \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
81 > \end{equation}
82 > Where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$,
83 > $\sigma_{ij}$ scales the length of the interaction, and
84 > $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the well depth of the potential.
85 >
86 > Because this potential is calculated between all pairs, the force
87 > evaluation can become computationally expensive for large systems. To
88 > keep the pair evaluation to a manegable number, OOPSE employs a
89 > cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be
90 > $2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest Lennard-Jones length
91 > parameter in the system. Truncating the calculation at
92 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ introduces a discontinuity into the potential
93 > energy. To offset this discontinuity, the energy value at
94 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ is subtracted from the entire potential. This causes
95 > the potential to go to zero at the cut-off radius.
96 >
97 > Interactions between dissimilar particles requires the generation of
98 > cross term parameters for $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$. These are
99 > calculated through the Lorentz-Berthelot mixing
100 > rules:\cite{allen87:csl}
101 > \begin{equation}
102 > \sigma_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}[\sigma_{ii} + \sigma_{jj}]
103 > \label{eq:sigmaMix}
104 > \end{equation}
105 > and
106 > \begin{equation}
107 > \epsilon_{ij} = \sqrt{\epsilon_{ii} \epsilon_{jj}}
108 > \label{eq:epsilonMix}
109 > \end{equation}
110 >
111 >
112 > \subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
113 >
114 > The Dipolar Unified-atom Force Field ({\sc duff}) was developed to
115 > simulate lipid bilayers. The systems require a model capable of forming
116 > bilayers, while still being sufficiently computationally efficient to
117 > allow simulations of large systems ($\approx$100's of phospholipids,
118 > $\approx$1000's of waters) for long times ($\approx$10's of
119 > nanoseconds).
120 >
121 > With this goal in mind, {\sc duff} has no point charges. Charge
122 > neutral distributions were replaced with dipoles, while most atoms and
123 > groups of atoms were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
124 > simplification cuts the length scale of long range interactions from
125 > $\frac{1}{r}$ to $\frac{1}{r^3}$, allowing us to avoid the
126 > computationally expensive Ewald sum. Instead, we can use
127 > neighbor-lists, reaction field, and cutoff radii for the dipolar
128 > interactions.
129 >
130 > As an example, lipid head-groups in {\sc duff} are represented as
131 > point dipole interaction sites. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at
132 > the head group center of mass, our model mimics the head group of
133 > phosphatidylcholine.\cite{Cevc87} Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site
134 > is located at the pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is
135 > illustrated by the dark grey atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}. The water model we use to complement the dipoles of the lipids is out
136 > repaarameterization of the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye
137 > \emph{et al.}\cite{liu96:new_model}
138 >
139 > \begin{figure}
140 > \epsfxsize=\linewidth
141 > \epsfbox{lipidModel.eps}
142 > \caption{A representation of the lipid model. $\phi$ is the torsion angle, $\theta$ %
143 > is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the head group, and n
144 > is the chain length.}
145 > \label{fig:lipidModel}
146 > \end{figure}
147 >
148 > Turning to the tails of the phospholipids, we have used a set of
149 > scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups with Lennard-Jones
150 > sites. For this, we have used the TraPPE force field of Siepmann
151 > \emph{et al}.\cite{Siepmann1998} TraPPE is a unified-atom
152 > representation of n-alkanes, which is parametrized against phase
153 > equilibria using Gibbs Monte Carlo simulation
154 > techniques.\cite{Siepmann1998} One of the advantages of TraPPE is that
155 > it generalizes the types of atoms in an alkyl chain to keep the number
156 > of pseudoatoms to a minimum; the parameters for an atom such as
157 > $\text{CH}_2$ do not change depending on what species are bonded to
158 > it.
159 >
160 > TraPPE also constrains of all bonds to be of fixed length. Typically,
161 > bond vibrations are the fastest motions in a molecular dynamic
162 > simulation. Small time steps between force evaluations must be used to
163 > ensure adequate sampling of the bond potential conservation of
164 > energy. By constraining the bond lengths, larger time steps may be
165 > used when integrating the equations of motion.
166 >
167 >
168 > \subsubsection{\label{subSec:energyFunctions}{\sc duff} Energy Functions}
169 >
170 > The total energy of function in {\sc duff} is given by the following:
171 > \begin{equation}
172 > V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}
173 >        + \sum^{N}_{I=1} \sum_{J>I} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
174 > \label{eq:totalPotential}
175 > \end{equation}
176 > Where $V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}$ is the internal potential of a molecule:
177 > \begin{equation}
178 > V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} =
179 >        \sum_{\theta_{ijk} \in I} V_{\text{bend}}(\theta_{ijk})
180 >        + \sum_{\phi_{ijkl} \in I} V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl})
181 >        + \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{(j>i+4) \in I}
182 >        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
183 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
184 >        \biggr]
185 > \label{eq:internalPotential}
186 > \end{equation}
187 > Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1, 3 bonded pairs
188 > within the molecule, and $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion potential
189 > for all 1, 4 bonded pairs. The pairwise portions of the internal
190 > potential are excluded for pairs that are closer than three bonds,
191 > i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a torsion are included in the
192 > pair-wise loop.
193 >
194 >
195 > The bend potential of a molecule is represented by the following function:
196 > \begin{equation}
197 > V_{\theta_{ijk}} = k_{\theta}( \theta_{ijk} - \theta_0 )^2 \label{eq:bendPot}
198 > \end{equation}
199 > Where $\theta_{ijk}$ is the angle defined by atoms $i$, $j$, and $k$
200 > (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}), and $\theta_0$ is the equilibrium
201 > bond angle. $k_{\theta}$ is the force constant which determines the
202 > strength of the harmonic bend. The parameters for $k_{\theta}$ and
203 > $\theta_0$ are based off of those in TraPPE.\cite{Siepmann1998}
204 >
205 > The torsion potential and parameters are also taken from TraPPE. It is
206 > of the form:
207 > \begin{equation}
208 > V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
209 >        + c_2[1 + \cos(2\phi)]
210 >        + c_3[1 + \cos(3\phi)]
211 > \label{eq:origTorsionPot}
212 > \end{equation}
213 > Here $\phi_{ijkl}$ is the angle defined by four bonded neighbors $i$,
214 > $j$, $k$, and $l$ (again, see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}). For
215 > computaional efficency, the torsion potential has been recast after
216 > the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series is
217 > converted to a power series of the form:
218 > \begin{equation}
219 > V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) =  
220 >        k_3 \cos^3 \phi + k_2 \cos^2 \phi + k_1 \cos \phi + k_0
221 > \label{eq:torsionPot}
222 > \end{equation}
223 > Where:
224 > \begin{align*}
225 > k_0 &= c_1 + c_3 \\
226 > k_1 &= c_1 - 3c_3 \\
227 > k_2 &= 2 c_2 \\
228 > k_3 &= 4c_3
229 > \end{align*}
230 > By recasting the equation to a power series, repeated trigonometric
231 > evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the potential.
232 >
233 >
234 > The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is
235 > as follows:
236 > \begin{equation}
237 > V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
238 >        \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
239 >        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
240 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
241 >        + V_{\text{sticky}}
242 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
243 >        \biggr]
244 > \label{eq:crossPotentail}
245 > \end{equation}
246 > Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential,
247 > $V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and
248 > $V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD
249 > model. Note that not all atom types include all interactions.
250 >
251 > The dipole-dipole potential has the following form:
252 > \begin{equation}
253 > V_{\text{dipole}}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},
254 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j}) = \frac{|\mu_i||\mu_j|}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}r_{ij}^{3}} \biggl[
255 >        \boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_{j}
256 >        -
257 >        \frac{3(\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
258 >                (\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
259 >                {r^{2}_{ij}} \biggr]
260 > \label{eq:dipolePot}
261 > \end{equation}
262 > Here $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the vector starting at atom $i$ pointing
263 > towards $j$, and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$
264 > are the Euler angles of atom $i$ and $j$ respectively. $|\mu_i|$ is
265 > the magnitude of the dipole moment of atom $i$ and
266 > $\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i$ is the standard unit orientation vector of
267 > $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
268 >
269 >
270 > \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}The {\sc DUFF} Water Models: SSD/E and SSD/RF}
271 >
272 > In the interest of computational efficiency, the default solvent used
273 > in {\sc oopse} is the Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD) water model. SSD was
274 > developed by Ichiye \emph{et al.} as a modified form of the
275 > hard-sphere water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and
276 > Luzar.\cite{Bratko85,Bratko95} It consists of a single point dipole
277 > with a Lennard-Jones core and a sticky potential that directs the
278 > particles to assume the proper hydrogen bond orientation in the first
279 > solvation shell. Thus, the interaction between two SSD water molecules
280 > \emph{i} and \emph{j} is given by the potential
281 > \begin{equation}
282 > V_{ij} =
283 >        V_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + V_{ij}^{dp}
284 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
285 >        V_{ij}^{sp}
286 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
287 > \label{eq:ssdPot}
288 > \end{equation}
289 > where the $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the position vector between molecules
290 > \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude equal to the distance $r_{ij}$, and
291 > $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$ represent the
292 > orientations of the respective molecules. The Lennard-Jones and dipole
293 > parts of the potential are given by equations \ref{eq:lennardJonesPot}
294 > and \ref{eq:dipolePot} respectively. The sticky part is described by
295 > the following,
296 > \begin{equation}
297 > u_{ij}^{sp}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=
298 >        \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
299 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j) +
300 >        s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
301 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)]\ ,
302 > \label{eq:stickyPot}
303 > \end{equation}
304 > where $\nu_0$ is a strength parameter for the sticky potential, and
305 > $s$ and $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions which turn off the
306 > sticky interaction beyond the first solvation shell. The $w$ function
307 > can be thought of as an attractive potential with tetrahedral
308 > geometry:
309 > \begin{equation}
310 > w({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
311 >        \sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
312 > \label{eq:stickyW}
313 > \end{equation}
314 > while the $w^\prime$ function counters the normal aligned and
315 > anti-aligned structures favored by point dipoles:
316 > \begin{equation}
317 > w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
318 >        (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^0,
319 > \label{eq:stickyWprime}
320 > \end{equation}
321 > It should be noted that $w$ is proportional to the sum of the $Y_3^2$
322 > and $Y_3^{-2}$ spherical harmonics (a linear combination which
323 > enhances the tetrahedral geometry for hydrogen bonded structures),
324 > while $w^\prime$ is a purely empirical function.  A more detailed
325 > description of the functional parts and variables in this potential
326 > can be found in the original SSD
327 > articles.\cite{Ichiye96,Ichiye96b,Ichiye99,Ichiye03}
328 >
329 > Since SSD is a single-point {\it dipolar} model, the force
330 > calculations are simplified significantly relative to the standard
331 > {\it charged} multi-point models. In the original Monte Carlo
332 > simulations using this model, Ichiye {\it et al.} reported that using
333 > SSD decreased computer time by a factor of 6-7 compared to other
334 > models.\cite{Ichiye96} What is most impressive is that this savings
335 > did not come at the expense of accurate depiction of the liquid state
336 > properties.  Indeed, SSD maintains reasonable agreement with the Soper
337 > data for the structural features of liquid
338 > water.\cite{Soper86,Ichiye96} Additionally, the dynamical properties
339 > exhibited by SSD agree with experiment better than those of more
340 > computationally expensive models (like TIP3P and
341 > SPC/E).\cite{Ichiye99} The combination of speed and accurate depiction
342 > of solvent properties makes SSD a very attractive model for the
343 > simulation of large scale biochemical simulations.
344 >
345 > Recent constant pressure simulations revealed issues in the original
346 > SSD model that led to lower than expected densities at all target
347 > pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} The default model in {\sc oopse}
348 > is SSD/E, a density corrected derivative of SSD that exhibits improved
349 > liquid structure and transport behavior. If the use of a reaction
350 > field long-range interaction correction is desired, it is recommended
351 > that the parameters be modified to those of the SSD/RF model. Solvent
352 > parameters can be easily modified in an accompanying {\sc BASS} file
353 > as illustrated in the scheme below. A table of the parameter values
354 > and the drawbacks and benefits of the different density corrected SSD
355 > models can be found in reference \ref{Gezelter04}.
356 >
357 > !!!Place a {\sc BASS} scheme showing SSD parameters around here!!!
358 >
359 > \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Method}
360 >
361 > Several other molecular dynamics packages\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the
362 > capacity to simulate metallic systems, including some that have
363 > parallel computational abilities\cite{plimpton93}. Potentials that
364 > describe bonding transition metal
365 > systems\cite{Finnis84,Ercolessi88,Chen90,Qi99,Ercolessi02} have a
366 > attractive interaction which models  ``Embedding''
367 > a positively charged metal ion in the electron density due to the
368 > free valance ``sea'' of electrons created by the surrounding atoms in
369 > the system. A mostly repulsive pairwise part of the potential
370 > describes the interaction of the positively charged metal core ions
371 > with one another. A particular potential description called the
372 > Embedded Atom Method\cite{Daw84,FBD86,johnson89,Lu97}({\sc eam}) that has
373 > particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in OOPSE. A
374 > good review of {\sc eam} and other metallic potential formulations was done
375 > by Voter.\cite{voter}
376 >
377 > The {\sc eam} potential has the form:
378 > \begin{eqnarray}
379 > V & = & \sum_{i} F_{i}\left[\rho_{i}\right] + \sum_{i} \sum_{j \neq i}
380 > \phi_{ij}({\bf r}_{ij})  \\
381 > \rho_{i}  & = & \sum_{j \neq i} f_{j}({\bf r}_{ij})
382 > \end{eqnarray}S
383 >
384 > where $F_{i} $ is the embedding function that equates the energy required to embed a
385 > positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear superposition of
386 > sperically averaged atomic electron densities given by
387 > $\rho_{i}$.  $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
388 > between atoms $i$ and $j$. In the original formulation of
389 > {\sc eam} cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
390 > in later refinements to EAM have shown that nonuniqueness between $F$
391 > and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89}
392 > There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
393 > summations in the {\sc eam} equation to the few dozen atoms
394 > surrounding atom $i$ for both the density $\rho$ and pairwise $\phi$
395 > interactions. Foiles et al. fit EAM potentials for fcc metals Cu, Ag, Au, Ni, Pd, Pt and alloys of these metals\cite{FDB86}. These potential fits are in the DYNAMO 86 format and are included with {\sc oopse}.
396 >
397 >
398 > \subsection{\label{Sec:pbc}Periodic Boundary Conditions}
399 >
400 > \textit{Periodic boundary conditions} are widely used to simulate truly
401 > macroscopic systems with a relatively small number of particles. The
402 > simulation box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite
403 > lattice.  During the simulation, when a particle moves in the primary
404 > cell, its image in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with
405 > exactly the same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary
406 > cell, one of its images will enter through the opposite face.If the
407 > simulation box is large enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetries of
408 > the periodic lattice, surface effects can be ignored. Cubic,
409 > orthorhombic and parallelepiped are the available periodic cells In
410 > OOPSE. We use a matrix to describe the property of the simulation
411 > box. Therefore, both the size and shape of the simulation box can be
412 > changed during the simulation. The transformation from box space
413 > vector $\mathbf{s}$ to its corresponding real space vector
414 > $\mathbf{r}$ is defined by
415 > \begin{equation}
416 > \mathbf{r}=\underline{\underline{H}}\cdot\mathbf{s}%
417 > \end{equation}
418 >
419 >
420 > where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of
421 > the three box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the
422 > three sides of the simulation box respectively.
423 >
424 > To find the minimum image, we convert the real vector to its
425 > corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip%
426 > \begin{equation}
427 > \mathbf{s}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{r}%
428 > \end{equation}
429 > And then, each element of $\mathbf{s}$ is wrapped to lie between -0.5 to 0.5,
430 > \begin{equation}
431 > s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-round(s_{i})
432 > \end{equation}
433 > where
434 >
435 > %
436 >
437 > \begin{equation}
438 > round(x)=\left\{
439 > \begin{array}[c]{c}%
440 > \lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor & \text{if \ }x\geqslant0\\
441 > \lceil{x-0.5}\rceil & \text{otherwise}%
442 > \end{array}
443 > \right.
444 > \end{equation}
445 >
446 >
447 > For example, $round(3.6)=4$,$round(3.1)=3$, $round(-3.6)=-4$,
448 > $round(-3.1)=-3$.
449 >
450 > Finally, we obtain the minimum image coordinates by transforming back
451 > to real space,%
452 >
453 > \begin{equation}
454 > \mathbf{r}^{\prime}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{s}^{\prime}%
455 > \end{equation}
456 >

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines