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 967 by chrisfen, Tue Jan 20 14:17:21 2004 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1  
2 < \section{The Emperical Energy Functions}
2 > \section{\label{sec:empiricalEnergy}The Empirical 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
8 < representation as possible. They may represent specific atoms of an
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}.
6 > The basic unit of an {\sc oopse} simulation is the atom. The
7 > parameters describing the atom are generalized to make the atom as
8 > flexible a representation as possible. They may represent specific
9 > atoms of an element, or be used for collections of atoms such as
10 > methyl and carbonyl groups. The atoms are also capable of having
11 > directional components associated with them (\emph{e.g.}~permanent
12 > dipoles). Charges on atoms are not currently supported by {\sc oopse}.
13  
14 + \begin{lstlisting}[caption={[Specifier for molecules and atoms] An example specifying the simple Ar molecule},label=sch:AtmMole]
15 + molecule{
16 +  name = "Ar";
17 +  nAtoms = 1;
18 +  atom[0]{
19 +     type="Ar";
20 +     position( 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 );
21 +  }
22 + }
23 + \end{lstlisting}
24 +
25   The second most basic building block of a simulation is the
26 < molecule. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to keep track of the atoms
27 < in a simulation in logical manner. This particular unit will store the
28 < identities of all the atoms associated with itself and is responsible
29 < for the evaluation of its own bonded interaction (i.e.~bonds, bends,
30 < and torsions).
26 > molecule. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to keep track of the
27 > atoms in a simulation in logical manner. This particular unit will
28 > store the identities of all the atoms associated with itself and is
29 > responsible for the evaluation of its own bonded interaction
30 > (i.e.~bonds, bends, and torsions).
31 >
32 > As stated previously, one of the features that sets {\sc oopse} apart
33 > from most of the current molecular simulation packages is the ability
34 > to handle rigid body dynamics. Rigid bodies are non-spherical
35 > particles or collections of particles that have a constant internal
36 > potential and move collectively.\cite{Goldstein01} They are not
37 > included in most simulation packages because of the requirement to
38 > propagate the orientational degrees of freedom. Until recently,
39 > integrators which propagate orientational motion have been lacking.
40 >
41 > Moving a rigid body involves determination of both the force and
42 > torque applied by the surroundings, which directly affect the
43 > translational and rotational motion in turn. In order to accumulate
44 > the total force on a rigid body, the external forces and torques must
45 > first be calculated for all the internal particles. The total force on
46 > the rigid body is simply the sum of these external forces.
47 > Accumulation of the total torque on the rigid body is more complex
48 > than the force in that it is the torque applied on the center of mass
49 > that dictates rotational motion. The torque on rigid body {\it i} is
50 > \begin{equation}
51 > \boldsymbol{\tau}_i=
52 >        \sum_{a}(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia}
53 >        + \boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia},
54 > \label{eq:torqueAccumulate}
55 > \end{equation}
56 > where $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque on and
57 > position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$,
58 > $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$, and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}$ are the force on,
59 > position of, and torque on the component particles of the rigid body.
60 >
61 > The summation of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of
62 > the rigid body. In order to move between the space fixed and body
63 > fixed coordinate axes, parameters describing the orientation must be
64 > maintained for each rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix
65 > (\textbf{A}) can be described by the three Euler angles ($\phi,
66 > \theta,$ and $\psi$), where the elements of \textbf{A} are composed of
67 > trigonometric operations involving $\phi, \theta,$ and
68 > $\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid numerical instabilities
69 > inherent in using the Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion''
70 > scheme is often used. The elements of \textbf{A} can be expressed as
71 > arithmetic operations involving the four quaternions ($q_0, q_1, q_2,$
72 > and $q_3$).\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads to
73 > performance enhancements, particularly for very small
74 > systems.\cite{Evans77}
75 >
76 > {\sc oopse} utilizes a relatively new scheme that propagates the
77 > entire nine parameter rotation matrix internally. Further discussion
78 > on this choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}.
79 >
80 > \subsection{\label{sec:LJPot}The Lennard Jones Potential}
81 >
82 > The most basic force field implemented in {\sc oopse} is the Lennard-Jones
83 > potential. The Lennard-Jones potential. Which mimics the Van der Waals
84 > interaction at long distances, and uses an empirical repulsion at
85 > short distances. The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
86 > \begin{equation}
87 > V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
88 >        4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[
89 >        \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{12}
90 >        - \biggl(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\biggr)^{6}
91 >        \biggr]
92 > \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
93 > \end{equation}
94 > Where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$,
95 > $\sigma_{ij}$ scales the length of the interaction, and
96 > $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the well depth of the potential.
97 >
98 > Because this potential is calculated between all pairs, the force
99 > evaluation can become computationally expensive for large systems. To
100 > keep the pair evaluation to a manageable number, {\sc oopse} employs a
101 > cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be
102 > $2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest Lennard-Jones length
103 > parameter in the system. Truncating the calculation at
104 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ introduces a discontinuity into the potential
105 > energy. To offset this discontinuity, the energy value at
106 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ is subtracted from the entire potential. This causes
107 > the potential to go to zero at the cut-off radius.
108 >
109 > Interactions between dissimilar particles requires the generation of
110 > cross term parameters for $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$. These are
111 > calculated through the Lorentz-Berthelot mixing
112 > rules:\cite{allen87:csl}
113 > \begin{equation}
114 > \sigma_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}[\sigma_{ii} + \sigma_{jj}]
115 > \label{eq:sigmaMix}
116 > \end{equation}
117 > and
118 > \begin{equation}
119 > \epsilon_{ij} = \sqrt{\epsilon_{ii} \epsilon_{jj}}
120 > \label{eq:epsilonMix}
121 > \end{equation}
122 >
123 >
124 > \subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
125 >
126 > The Dipolar Unified-atom Force Field ({\sc duff}) was developed to
127 > simulate lipid bilayers. The systems require a model capable of forming
128 > bilayers, while still being sufficiently computationally efficient to
129 > allow simulations of large systems ($\approx$100's of phospholipids,
130 > $\approx$1000's of waters) for long times ($\approx$10's of
131 > nanoseconds).
132 >
133 > With this goal in mind, {\sc duff} has no point charges. Charge
134 > neutral distributions were replaced with dipoles, while most atoms and
135 > groups of atoms were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
136 > simplification cuts the length scale of long range interactions from
137 > $\frac{1}{r}$ to $\frac{1}{r^3}$, allowing us to avoid the
138 > computationally expensive Ewald sum. Instead, we can use
139 > neighbor-lists, reaction field, and cutoff radii for the dipolar
140 > interactions.
141 >
142 > As an example, lipid head-groups in {\sc duff} are represented as
143 > point dipole interaction sites. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at
144 > the head group center of mass, our model mimics the head group of
145 > phosphatidylcholine.\cite{Cevc87} Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site
146 > is located at the pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is
147 > 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
148 > reparameterization of the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye
149 > \emph{et al.}\cite{liu96:new_model}
150 >
151 > \begin{figure}
152 > \epsfxsize=\linewidth
153 > \epsfbox{lipidModel.eps}
154 > \caption{A representation of the lipid model. $\phi$ is the torsion angle, $\theta$ %
155 > is the bend angle, $\mu$ is the dipole moment of the head group, and n
156 > is the chain length.}
157 > \label{fig:lipidModel}
158 > \end{figure}
159 >
160 > Turning to the tails of the phospholipids, we have used a set of
161 > scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups with Lennard-Jones
162 > sites. For this, we have used the TraPPE force field of Siepmann
163 > \emph{et al}.\cite{Siepmann1998} TraPPE is a unified-atom
164 > representation of n-alkanes, which is parametrized against phase
165 > equilibria using Gibbs Monte Carlo simulation
166 > techniques.\cite{Siepmann1998} One of the advantages of TraPPE is that
167 > it generalizes the types of atoms in an alkyl chain to keep the number
168 > of pseudoatoms to a minimum; the parameters for an atom such as
169 > $\text{CH}_2$ do not change depending on what species are bonded to
170 > it.
171 >
172 > TraPPE also constrains of all bonds to be of fixed length. Typically,
173 > bond vibrations are the fastest motions in a molecular dynamic
174 > simulation. Small time steps between force evaluations must be used to
175 > ensure adequate sampling of the bond potential conservation of
176 > energy. By constraining the bond lengths, larger time steps may be
177 > used when integrating the equations of motion.
178 >
179 >
180 > \subsubsection{\label{subSec:energyFunctions}{\sc duff} Energy Functions}
181 >
182 > The total energy of function in {\sc duff} is given by the following:
183 > \begin{equation}
184 > V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}
185 >        + \sum^{N}_{I=1} \sum_{J>I} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
186 > \label{eq:totalPotential}
187 > \end{equation}
188 > Where $V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}$ is the internal potential of a molecule:
189 > \begin{equation}
190 > V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} =
191 >        \sum_{\theta_{ijk} \in I} V_{\text{bend}}(\theta_{ijk})
192 >        + \sum_{\phi_{ijkl} \in I} V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl})
193 >        + \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{(j>i+4) \in I}
194 >        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
195 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
196 >        \biggr]
197 > \label{eq:internalPotential}
198 > \end{equation}
199 > Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1, 3 bonded pairs
200 > within the molecule, and $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion potential
201 > for all 1, 4 bonded pairs. The pairwise portions of the internal
202 > potential are excluded for pairs that are closer than three bonds,
203 > i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a torsion are included in the
204 > pair-wise loop.
205 >
206 >
207 > The bend potential of a molecule is represented by the following function:
208 > \begin{equation}
209 > V_{\theta_{ijk}} = k_{\theta}( \theta_{ijk} - \theta_0 )^2 \label{eq:bendPot}
210 > \end{equation}
211 > Where $\theta_{ijk}$ is the angle defined by atoms $i$, $j$, and $k$
212 > (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}), and $\theta_0$ is the equilibrium
213 > bond angle. $k_{\theta}$ is the force constant which determines the
214 > strength of the harmonic bend. The parameters for $k_{\theta}$ and
215 > $\theta_0$ are based off of those in TraPPE.\cite{Siepmann1998}
216 >
217 > The torsion potential and parameters are also taken from TraPPE. It is
218 > of the form:
219 > \begin{equation}
220 > V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
221 >        + c_2[1 + \cos(2\phi)]
222 >        + c_3[1 + \cos(3\phi)]
223 > \label{eq:origTorsionPot}
224 > \end{equation}
225 > Here $\phi_{ijkl}$ is the angle defined by four bonded neighbors $i$,
226 > $j$, $k$, and $l$ (again, see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}). For
227 > computational efficiency, the torsion potential has been recast after
228 > the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series is
229 > converted to a power series of the form:
230 > \begin{equation}
231 > V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) =  
232 >        k_3 \cos^3 \phi + k_2 \cos^2 \phi + k_1 \cos \phi + k_0
233 > \label{eq:torsionPot}
234 > \end{equation}
235 > Where:
236 > \begin{align*}
237 > k_0 &= c_1 + c_3 \\
238 > k_1 &= c_1 - 3c_3 \\
239 > k_2 &= 2 c_2 \\
240 > k_3 &= 4c_3
241 > \end{align*}
242 > By recasting the equation to a power series, repeated trigonometric
243 > evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the potential.
244 >
245 >
246 > The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is
247 > as follows:
248 > \begin{equation}
249 > V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
250 >        \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
251 >        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
252 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
253 >        + V_{\text{sticky}}
254 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
255 >        \biggr]
256 > \label{eq:crossPotentail}
257 > \end{equation}
258 > Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential,
259 > $V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and
260 > $V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD
261 > model. Note that not all atom types include all interactions.
262 >
263 > The dipole-dipole potential has the following form:
264 > \begin{equation}
265 > V_{\text{dipole}}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},
266 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j}) = \frac{|\mu_i||\mu_j|}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}r_{ij}^{3}} \biggl[
267 >        \boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_{j}
268 >        -
269 >        \frac{3(\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
270 >                (\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
271 >                {r^{2}_{ij}} \biggr]
272 > \label{eq:dipolePot}
273 > \end{equation}
274 > Here $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the vector starting at atom $i$ pointing
275 > towards $j$, and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$
276 > are the Euler angles of atom $i$ and $j$ respectively. $|\mu_i|$ is
277 > the magnitude of the dipole moment of atom $i$ and
278 > $\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i$ is the standard unit orientation vector of
279 > $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
280 >
281 >
282 > \subsection{\label{sec:SSD}The {\sc duff} Water Models: SSD/E and SSD/RF}
283 >
284 > In the interest of computational efficiency, the default solvent used
285 > by {\sc oopse} is the extended Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD/E) water
286 > model.\cite{Gezelter04} The original SSD was developed by Ichiye
287 > \emph{et al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} as a modified form of the hard-sphere
288 > water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and
289 > Luzar.\cite{Bratko85,Bratko95} It consists of a single point dipole
290 > with a Lennard-Jones core and a sticky potential that directs the
291 > particles to assume the proper hydrogen bond orientation in the first
292 > solvation shell. Thus, the interaction between two SSD water molecules
293 > \emph{i} and \emph{j} is given by the potential
294 > \begin{equation}
295 > V_{ij} =
296 >        V_{ij}^{LJ} (r_{ij})\ + V_{ij}^{dp}
297 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)\ +
298 >        V_{ij}^{sp}
299 >        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j),
300 > \label{eq:ssdPot}
301 > \end{equation}
302 > where the $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the position vector between molecules
303 > \emph{i} and \emph{j} with magnitude equal to the distance $r_{ij}$, and
304 > $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$ represent the
305 > orientations of the respective molecules. The Lennard-Jones and dipole
306 > parts of the potential are given by equations \ref{eq:lennardJonesPot}
307 > and \ref{eq:dipolePot} respectively. The sticky part is described by
308 > the following,
309 > \begin{equation}
310 > u_{ij}^{sp}(\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)=
311 >        \frac{\nu_0}{2}[s(r_{ij})w(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
312 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j) +
313 >        s^\prime(r_{ij})w^\prime(\mathbf{r}_{ij},
314 >        \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i,\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j)]\ ,
315 > \label{eq:stickyPot}
316 > \end{equation}
317 > where $\nu_0$ is a strength parameter for the sticky potential, and
318 > $s$ and $s^\prime$ are cubic switching functions which turn off the
319 > sticky interaction beyond the first solvation shell. The $w$ function
320 > can be thought of as an attractive potential with tetrahedral
321 > geometry:
322 > \begin{equation}
323 > w({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
324 >        \sin\theta_{ij}\sin2\theta_{ij}\cos2\phi_{ij},
325 > \label{eq:stickyW}
326 > \end{equation}
327 > while the $w^\prime$ function counters the normal aligned and
328 > anti-aligned structures favored by point dipoles:
329 > \begin{equation}
330 > w^\prime({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf \Omega}_i,{\bf \Omega}_j)=
331 >        (\cos\theta_{ij}-0.6)^2(\cos\theta_{ij}+0.8)^2-w^0,
332 > \label{eq:stickyWprime}
333 > \end{equation}
334 > It should be noted that $w$ is proportional to the sum of the $Y_3^2$
335 > and $Y_3^{-2}$ spherical harmonics (a linear combination which
336 > enhances the tetrahedral geometry for hydrogen bonded structures),
337 > while $w^\prime$ is a purely empirical function.  A more detailed
338 > description of the functional parts and variables in this potential
339 > can be found in the original SSD
340 > articles.\cite{liu96:new_model,liu96:monte_carlo,chandra99:ssd_md,Ichiye03}
341 >
342 > Since SSD is a single-point {\it dipolar} model, the force
343 > calculations are simplified significantly relative to the standard
344 > {\it charged} multi-point models. In the original Monte Carlo
345 > simulations using this model, Ichiye {\it et al.} reported that using
346 > SSD decreased computer time by a factor of 6-7 compared to other
347 > models.\cite{liu96:new_model} What is most impressive is that these savings
348 > did not come at the expense of accurate depiction of the liquid state
349 > properties.  Indeed, SSD maintains reasonable agreement with the Soper
350 > diffraction data for the structural features of liquid
351 > water.\cite{Soper86,liu96:new_model} Additionally, the dynamical properties
352 > exhibited by SSD agree with experiment better than those of more
353 > computationally expensive models (like TIP3P and
354 > SPC/E).\cite{chandra99:ssd_md} The combination of speed and accurate depiction
355 > of solvent properties makes SSD a very attractive model for the
356 > simulation of large scale biochemical simulations.
357 >
358 > Recent constant pressure simulations revealed issues in the original
359 > SSD model that led to lower than expected densities at all target
360 > pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} The default model in {\sc oopse}
361 > is therefore SSD/E, a density corrected derivative of SSD that
362 > exhibits improved liquid structure and transport behavior. If the use
363 > of a reaction field long-range interaction correction is desired, it
364 > is recommended that the parameters be modified to those of the SSD/RF
365 > model. Solvent parameters can be easily modified in an accompanying
366 > {\sc BASS} file as illustrated in the scheme below. A table of the
367 > parameter values and the drawbacks and benefits of the different
368 > density corrected SSD models can be found in reference
369 > \ref{Gezelter04}.
370 >
371 > !!!Place a {\sc BASS} scheme showing SSD parameters around here!!!
372 >
373 > \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Method}
374 >
375 > Several other molecular dynamics packages\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the
376 > capacity to simulate metallic systems, including some that have
377 > parallel computational abilities\cite{plimpton93}. Potentials that
378 > describe bonding transition metal
379 > systems\cite{Finnis84,Ercolessi88,Chen90,Qi99,Ercolessi02} have a
380 > attractive interaction which models  ``Embedding''
381 > a positively charged metal ion in the electron density due to the
382 > free valance ``sea'' of electrons created by the surrounding atoms in
383 > the system. A mostly repulsive pairwise part of the potential
384 > describes the interaction of the positively charged metal core ions
385 > with one another. A particular potential description called the
386 > Embedded Atom Method\cite{Daw84,FBD86,johnson89,Lu97}({\sc eam}) that has
387 > particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in {\sc oopse}. A
388 > good review of {\sc eam} and other metallic potential formulations was done
389 > by Voter.\cite{voter}
390 >
391 > The {\sc eam} potential has the form:
392 > \begin{eqnarray}
393 > V & = & \sum_{i} F_{i}\left[\rho_{i}\right] + \sum_{i} \sum_{j \neq i}
394 > \phi_{ij}({\bf r}_{ij})  \\
395 > \rho_{i}  & = & \sum_{j \neq i} f_{j}({\bf r}_{ij})
396 > \end{eqnarray}S
397 >
398 > where $F_{i} $ is the embedding function that equates the energy required to embed a
399 > positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear superposition of
400 > spherically averaged atomic electron densities given by
401 > $\rho_{i}$.  $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
402 > between atoms $i$ and $j$. In the original formulation of
403 > {\sc eam} cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
404 > in later refinements to EAM have shown that non-uniqueness between $F$
405 > and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89}
406 > There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
407 > summations in the {\sc eam} equation to the few dozen atoms
408 > surrounding atom $i$ for both the density $\rho$ and pairwise $\phi$
409 > 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}.
410 >
411 >
412 > \subsection{\label{Sec:pbc}Periodic Boundary Conditions}
413 >
414 > \newcommand{\roundme}{\operatorname{round}}
415 >
416 > \textit{Periodic boundary conditions} are widely used to simulate truly
417 > macroscopic systems with a relatively small number of particles. The
418 > simulation box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite
419 > lattice.  During the simulation, when a particle moves in the primary
420 > cell, its image in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with
421 > exactly the same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary
422 > cell, one of its images will enter through the opposite face.If the
423 > simulation box is large enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetries of
424 > the periodic lattice, surface effects can be ignored. Cubic,
425 > orthorhombic and parallelepiped are the available periodic cells In
426 > {\sc oopse}. We use a matrix to describe the property of the simulation
427 > box. Therefore, both the size and shape of the simulation box can be
428 > changed during the simulation. The transformation from box space
429 > vector $\mathbf{s}$ to its corresponding real space vector
430 > $\mathbf{r}$ is defined by
431 > \begin{equation}
432 > \mathbf{r}=\underline{\underline{H}}\cdot\mathbf{s}%
433 > \end{equation}
434 >
435 >
436 > where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of
437 > the three box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the
438 > three sides of the simulation box respectively.
439 >
440 > To find the minimum image, we convert the real vector to its
441 > corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip%
442 > \begin{equation}
443 > \mathbf{s}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{r}%
444 > \end{equation}
445 > And then, each element of $\mathbf{s}$ is wrapped to lie between -0.5 to 0.5,
446 > \begin{equation}
447 > s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-\roundme(s_{i})
448 > \end{equation}
449 > where
450 >
451 > %
452 >
453 > \begin{equation}
454 > \roundme(x)=\left\{
455 > \begin{array}{cc}
456 > \lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor & \text{if \ }x\geqslant0\\
457 > \lceil{x-0.5}\rceil & \text{otherwise}%
458 > \end{array}
459 > \right.
460 > \end{equation}
461 > For example, $\roundme(3.6)=4$, $\roundme(3.1)=3$, $\roundme(-3.6)=-4$,
462 > $\roundme(-3.1)=-3$.
463 >
464 > Finally, we obtain the minimum image coordinates by transforming back
465 > to real space,%
466 >
467 > \begin{equation}
468 > \mathbf{r}^{\prime}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{s}^{\prime}%
469 > \end{equation}
470 >

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines