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 918 by mmeineke, Fri Jan 9 20:57:55 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 932 by chuckv, Tue Jan 13 20:01:19 2004 UTC

# 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 in the previously, one of the features that sets OOPSE apart
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 many standard simulation packages because of the need to
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  
# Line 31 | Line 31 | force on a rigid body, the external forces must first
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 interal particles. The total force on the rigid body is
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 similar to the force in that it is a sum
37 < of the torque applied on each internal particle, mapped onto the
38 < center of mass of the rigid body.
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 be
52 < maintained for each rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix can
53 < be described and propagated by the three Euler
54 < angles.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid rotational limitations
55 < when using Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion'' scheme can
56 < be used instead.\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads to
57 < performance enhancements, particularly for very small
58 < systems.\cite{Evans77} OOPSE utilizes a relatively new scheme that
59 < propagates the entire nine parameter rotation matrix. Further
60 < discussion on this choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}.
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 mimics the attractive forces
72 < two charge neutral particles experience when spontaneous dipoles are
73 < induced on each other. This is the predominant intermolecular force in
59 < systems of such as noble gases and simple alkanes.
60 <
61 < The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
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[
# Line 67 | Line 79 | V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
79          \biggr]
80   \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
81   \end{equation}
82 < Where $r_ij$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$, $\sigma_{ij}$
83 < scales the length of the interaction, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the
84 < energy well depth of the potential.
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 the potential is calculated between all pairs, the force
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 the use
89 < of a cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be
90 < $2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest self self length
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 equation to go to zero at the cut-off radius.
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
# Line 99 | Line 111 | and
111  
112   \subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
113  
114 < The \underline{D}ipolar \underline{U}nified-Atom
115 < \underline{F}orce \underline{F}ield ({\sc duff}) was developed to
104 < simulate lipid bilayers. We needed a model capable of forming
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, we have eliminated all point charges. Charge
122 < distributions were replaced with dipoles, and charge-neutral
123 < distributions were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
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 and cutoff radii for the dipolar interactions.
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 point
131 < dipole interaction sites.PC and PE Lipid head groups are typically
132 < zwitterionic in nature, with charges separated by as much as
133 < 6~$\mbox{\AA}$. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at the head group
134 < center of mass, our model mimics the head group of PC.\cite{Cevc87}
135 < Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site is located at the
136 < pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is illustrated by the dark grey
137 < atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
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 is the chain length.}
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  
134 The water model we use to complement the dipoles of the lipids is
135 the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye \emph{et
136 al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} This model is discussed in greater detail
137 in Sec.~\ref{sec:SSD}. In all cases we reduce water to a single
138 Lennard-Jones interaction site. The site also contains a dipole to
139 mimic the partial charges on the hydrogens and the oxygen. However,
140 what makes the SSD model unique is the inclusion of a tetrahedral
141 short range potential to recover the hydrogen bonding of water, an
142 important factor when modeling bilayers, as it has been shown that
143 hydrogen bond network formation is a leading contribution to the
144 entropic driving force towards lipid bilayer formation.\cite{Cevc87}
145
146
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
# Line 169 | Line 170 | V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Interna
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^{N}_{J=1} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
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}}(\theta_{ijkl})
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})
# Line 184 | Line 185 | Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1
185   \label{eq:internalPotential}
186   \end{equation}
187   Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1, 3 bonded pairs
188 < within in the molecule. $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion The
189 < pairwise portions of the internal potential are excluded for pairs
190 < that ar closer than three bonds, i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a
191 < torsion are included in the pair-wise loop.
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  
192 The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is
193 as follows:
194 \begin{equation}
195 V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
196        \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
197        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
198        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
199        + V_{\text{sticky}}
200        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
201        \biggr]
202 \label{eq:crossPotentail}
203 \end{equation}
204 Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential,
205 $V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and
206 $V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD model.
194  
195   The bend potential of a molecule is represented by the following function:
196   \begin{equation}
# Line 218 | Line 205 | of the form:
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_{ijkl}) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
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}).  However,
215 < for computaional efficency, the torsion potentail has been recast
216 < after the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series
217 < is converted to a power series of the form:
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
# Line 244 | Line 231 | evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the
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{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \biggl[
255 <        \frac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_{j}}{r^{3}_{ij}}
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{\mu}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
258 <                (\boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
259 <                {r^{5}_{ij}} \biggr]
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 $j$
265 < respectively. $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ is the dipole vector of atom
266 < $i$ it takes its orientation from $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
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}Water Model: SSD and Derivatives}
270 > \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}The {\sc DUFF} Water Models: SSD/E and SSD/RF}
271  
272 < In the interest of computational efficiency, the native solvent used
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
# Line 275 | Line 279 | solvation shell. Thus, the interaction between two SSD
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 < u_{ij} = u_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + u_{ij}^{dp}
283 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
284 < u_{ij}^{sp}
285 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
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
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, dipole,
293 < and sticky parts of the potential are giving by the following
294 < equations,
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}^{LJ}(r_{ij}) = 4\epsilon \left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{6}\right],
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 < u_{ij}^{dp} = \frac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\mu}_j}{r_{ij}^3}-\frac{3(\boldsymbol{\mu}_i\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij})(\boldsymbol{\mu}_j\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij})}{r_{ij}^5}\ ,
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 < \begin{split}
318 < u_{ij}^{sp}
319 < (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)
299 < &=
300 < \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\\
301 < & \quad \ +
302 < s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)]\ ,
303 < \end{split}
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 < where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}_j$ are the dipole
322 < unit vectors of particles \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude 2.35 D,
323 < $\nu_0$ scales the strength of the overall sticky potential, $s$ and
324 < $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions. The $w$ and $w^\prime$
325 < functions take the following forms,
326 < \begin{equation}
327 < w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=\sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
312 < \end{equation}
313 < \begin{equation}
314 < w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j) = (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^0,
315 < \end{equation}
316 < where $w^0 = 0.07715$. The $w$ function is the tetrahedral attractive
317 < term that promotes hydrogen bonding orientations within the first
318 < solvation shell, and $w^\prime$ is a dipolar repulsion term that
319 < repels unrealistic dipolar arrangements within the first solvation
320 < shell. A more detailed description of the functional parts and
321 < variables in this potential can be found in other
322 < articles.\cite{liu96:new_model,chandra99:ssd_md}
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 one-site point dipole model, the force calculations are
330 < simplified significantly from a computational standpoint, in that the
331 < number of long-range interactions is dramatically reduced. In the
332 < original Monte Carlo simulations using this model, Ichiye \emph{et
333 < al.} reported a calculation speed up of up to an order of magnitude
334 < over other comparable models while maintaining the structural behavior
335 < of water.\cite{liu96:new_model} In the original molecular dynamics studies of
336 < SSD, it was shown that it actually improves upon the prediction of
337 < water's dynamical properties over TIP3P and SPC/E.\cite{chandra99:ssd_md}
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} Reparameterizations of the
348 < original SSD have resulted in improved density behavior, as well as
349 < alterations in the water structure and transport behavior. {\sc oopse} is
350 < easily modified to impliment these new potential parameter sets for
351 < the derivative water models: SSD1, SSD/E, and SSD/RF. All of the
352 < variable parameters are listed in the accompanying BASS file, and
353 < these parameters simply need to be changed to the updated values.
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 Model}
359 > \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Method}
360  
361 < Several molecular dynamics codes\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the
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 the stabilization of ``Embedding''
367 < a positively charged metal ion in an electron density created by the
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}(EAM) that has
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 EAM and other metallic potential formulations was done
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:
# Line 365 | Line 379 | V & = & \sum_{i} F_{i}\left[\rho_{i}\right] + \sum_{i}
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}
382 > \end{eqnarray}S
383  
384 < where $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
385 < between atoms $i$ and $j$.In the origional formulation of
372 < EAM\cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
373 < in later refinements to EAM have shown that nonuniqueness between $F$
374 < and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89} The
375 < embedding function $F_{i}$ is the energy required to embedded an
376 < positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear supeposition of
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 < $\rho_{i}$. There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
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.
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. Simulation
402 < box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite lattice. During the
403 < simulation, when a particle moves in the primary cell, its periodic image
404 < particles in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with exactly the
405 < same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary cell, one of its
406 < images will enter through the opposite face.If the simulation box is large
407 < enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetric of the periodic lattice,the surface
408 < effect could be ignored. Cubic and parallelepiped are the available periodic
409 < cells. \bigskip In OOPSE, we use the matrix instead of the vector to describe
410 < the property of the simulation box. Therefore, not only the size of the
411 < simulation box could be changed during the simulation, but also the shape of
412 < it. The transformation from box space vector $\overrightarrow{s}$ to its
413 < corresponding real space vector $\overrightarrow{r}$ is defined by
414 < \begin{equation}
415 < \overrightarrow{r}=H\overrightarrow{s}%
416 < \end{equation}
417 <
418 <
419 < where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of the three
420 < box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the sides of the
421 < simulation box respectively.
422 <
423 < To find the minimum image, we need to convert the real vector to its
424 < corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip%
425 < \begin{equation}
426 < \overrightarrow{s}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{r}%
427 < \end{equation}
428 < And then, each element of $\overrightarrow{s}$ is casted to lie between -0.5
429 < to 0.5,
430 < \begin{equation}
431 < s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-round(s_{i})
432 < \end{equation}
433 < where%
434 <
435 < \begin{equation}
436 < round(x)=\lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{
437 < }x\geqslant0
438 < \end{equation}
439 < %
440 <
441 < \begin{equation}
442 < round(x)=\lceil{x-0.5}\rceil\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{ }x<0
443 < \end{equation}
444 <
445 <
446 < For example, $round(3.6)=4$,$round(3.1)=3$, $round(-3.6)=-4$, $round(-3.1)=-3$.
447 <
448 < Finally, we could get the minimum image by transforming back to real space,%
449 <
450 < \begin{equation}
451 < \overrightarrow{r^{\prime}}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{s^{\prime}}%
452 < \end{equation}
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