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 925 by chrisfen, Mon Jan 12 18:43:56 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 967 by chrisfen, Tue Jan 20 14:17:21 2004 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1  
2 < \section{\label{sec:empericalEnergy}The Emperical Energy Functions}
2 > \section{\label{sec:empiricalEnergy}The Empirical Energy Functions}
3  
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
27   atoms in a simulation in logical manner. This particular unit will
# Line 18 | Line 29 | responsible for the evaluation of its own bonded inter
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
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 need to
38 < consider orientational degrees of freedom and include an integrator
39 < that accurately propagates these motions in time.
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 < translation and rotation in turn. In order to accumulate the total
44 < force on a rigid body, the external forces must first be calculated
45 < for all the internal particles. The total force on the rigid body is
46 < simply the sum of these external forces.  Accumulation of the total
47 < torque on the rigid body is more complex than the force in that it is
48 < the torque applied on the center of mass that dictates rotational
49 < motion. The summation of this torque is given by
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 < \mathbf{\tau}_i=
52 <        \sum_{a}(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia},
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 $\mathbf{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque about and
57 < position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$
58 < and $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$ are the force on and position of the component
59 < particles of the rigid body.\cite{allen87:csl}
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 application of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of
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 and propagated by the three Euler angles
66 < ($\phi, \theta, \text{and} \psi$), where \textbf{A} is composed of
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 rotational limitations
68 > $\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid numerical instabilities
69   inherent in using the Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion''
70 < scheme can be used instead, where \textbf{A} is composed of arithmetic
71 < operations involving the four components of a quaternion ($q_0, q_1,
72 < q_2, \text{and} q_3$).\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads
73 < to performance enhancements, particularly for very small
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 uses the entire nine
77 < parameter rotation matrix internally. Further discussion on this
78 < choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}.
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 OOPSE is the Lennard-Jones
83 < potential. The Lennard-Jones potential mimics the attractive forces
84 < two charge neutral particles experience when spontaneous dipoles are
85 < induced on each other. This is the predominant intermolecular force in
74 < systems of such as noble gases and simple alkanes.
75 <
76 < The Lennard-Jones potential is given by:
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[
# Line 82 | Line 91 | V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) =
91          \biggr]
92   \label{eq:lennardJonesPot}
93   \end{equation}
94 < Where $r_ij$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$, $\sigma_{ij}$
95 < scales the length of the interaction, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the
96 < energy well depth of the potential.
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 the potential is calculated between all pairs, the force
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 manegable number, OOPSE employs the use
101 < of a cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be
102 < $2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest self self length
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 equation to go to zero at the cut-off radius.
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
# Line 114 | Line 123 | and
123  
124   \subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field}
125  
126 < The \underline{D}ipolar \underline{U}nified-Atom
127 < \underline{F}orce \underline{F}ield ({\sc duff}) was developed to
119 < simulate lipid bilayers. We needed a model capable of forming
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, we have eliminated all point charges. Charge
134 < distributions were replaced with dipoles, and charge-neutral
135 < distributions were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This
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 and cutoff radii for the dipolar interactions.
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 point
143 < dipole interaction sites.PC and PE Lipid head groups are typically
144 < zwitterionic in nature, with charges separated by as much as
145 < 6~$\mbox{\AA}$. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at the head group
146 < center of mass, our model mimics the head group of PC.\cite{Cevc87}
147 < Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site is located at the
148 < pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is illustrated by the dark grey
149 < atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}.
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 is the chain length.}
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  
149 The water model we use to complement the dipoles of the lipids is
150 the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye \emph{et
151 al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} This model is discussed in greater detail
152 in Sec.~\ref{sec:SSD}. In all cases we reduce water to a single
153 Lennard-Jones interaction site. The site also contains a dipole to
154 mimic the partial charges on the hydrogens and the oxygen. However,
155 what makes the SSD model unique is the inclusion of a tetrahedral
156 short range potential to recover the hydrogen bonding of water, an
157 important factor when modeling bilayers, as it has been shown that
158 hydrogen bond network formation is a leading contribution to the
159 entropic driving force towards lipid bilayer formation.\cite{Cevc87}
160
161
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
# Line 184 | Line 182 | V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Interna
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^{N}_{J=1} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}
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}}(\theta_{ijkl})
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})
# Line 199 | Line 197 | Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1
197   \label{eq:internalPotential}
198   \end{equation}
199   Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1, 3 bonded pairs
200 < within in the molecule. $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion The
201 < pairwise portions of the internal potential are excluded for pairs
202 < that ar closer than three bonds, i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a
203 < torsion are included in the pair-wise loop.
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  
207 The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is
208 as follows:
209 \begin{equation}
210 V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} =
211        \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J}
212        \biggl[ V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) +  V_{\text{dipole}}
213        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
214        + V_{\text{sticky}}
215        (\mathbf{r}_{ij},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{i},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{j})
216        \biggr]
217 \label{eq:crossPotentail}
218 \end{equation}
219 Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential,
220 $V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and
221 $V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD model.
206  
207   The bend potential of a molecule is represented by the following function:
208   \begin{equation}
# Line 233 | Line 217 | of the form:
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_{ijkl}) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi]
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}).  However,
227 < for computaional efficency, the torsion potentail has been recast
228 < after the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series
229 < is converted to a power series of the form:
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
# Line 259 | Line 243 | evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the
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{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \biggl[
267 <        \frac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_{j}}{r^{3}_{ij}}
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{\mu}_i \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) %
270 <                (\boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot \mathbf{r}_{ij}) }
271 <                {r^{5}_{ij}} \biggr]
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 $j$
277 < respectively. $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ is the dipole vector of atom
278 < $i$ it takes its orientation from $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$.
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}
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 < in {\sc oopse} is the Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD) water model. SSD was
286 < developed by Ichiye \emph{et al.} as a modified form of the
287 < hard-sphere water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and
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
# Line 335 | Line 337 | can be found in the original SSD
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{Ichiye96,Ichiye96b,Ichiye99,Ichiye03}
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{Ichiye96} What is most impressive is that this savings
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 < data for the structural features of liquid
351 < water.\cite{Soper86,Ichiye96} Additionally, the dynamical properties
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{Ichiye99} The combination of speed and accurate depiction
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 SSD/E, a density corrected derivative of SSD that exhibits improved
362 < liquid structure and transport behavior. If the use of a reaction
363 < field long-range interaction correction is desired, it is recommended
364 < that the parameters be modified to those of the SSD/RF model. Solvent
365 < parameters can be easily modified in an accompanying {\sc BASS} file
366 < as illustrated in the scheme below. A table of the parameter values
367 < and the drawbacks and benefits of the different density corrected SSD
368 < models can be found in reference \ref{Gezelter04}.
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 Model}
373 > \subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Method}
374  
375 < Several molecular dynamics codes\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the
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 the stabilization of ``Embedding''
381 < a positively charged metal ion in an electron density created by the
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}(EAM) that has
387 < particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in OOPSE. A
388 < good review of EAM and other metallic potential formulations was done
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:
# Line 390 | Line 393 | V & = & \sum_{i} F_{i}\left[\rho_{i}\right] + \sum_{i}
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}
396 > \end{eqnarray}S
397  
398 < where $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction
399 < between atoms $i$ and $j$.In the origional formulation of
400 < EAM\cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however
401 < in later refinements to EAM have shown that nonuniqueness between $F$
402 < and $\phi$ allow for more general forms for $\phi$.\cite{Daw89} The
403 < embedding function $F_{i}$ is the energy required to embedded an
404 < positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear supeposition of
405 < sperically averaged atomic electron densities given by
406 < $\rho_{i}$. There is a cutoff distance, $r_{cut}$, which limits the
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.
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. Simulation
418 < box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite lattice. During the
419 < simulation, when a particle moves in the primary cell, its periodic image
420 < particles in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with exactly the
421 < same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary cell, one of its
422 < images will enter through the opposite face.If the simulation box is large
423 < enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetric of the periodic lattice,the surface
424 < effect could be ignored. Cubic and parallelepiped are the available periodic
425 < cells. \bigskip In OOPSE, we use the matrix instead of the vector to describe
426 < the property of the simulation box. Therefore, not only the size of the
427 < simulation box could be changed during the simulation, but also the shape of
428 < it. The transformation from box space vector $\overrightarrow{s}$ to its
429 < corresponding real space vector $\overrightarrow{r}$ is defined by
430 < \begin{equation}
431 < \overrightarrow{r}=H\overrightarrow{s}%
432 < \end{equation}
433 <
434 <
435 < where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of the three
436 < box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the sides of the
437 < simulation box respectively.
438 <
439 < To find the minimum image, we need to convert the real vector to its
440 < corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip%
441 < \begin{equation}
442 < \overrightarrow{s}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{r}%
443 < \end{equation}
444 < And then, each element of $\overrightarrow{s}$ is casted to lie between -0.5
445 < to 0.5,
446 < \begin{equation}
447 < s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-round(s_{i})
448 < \end{equation}
449 < where%
450 <
451 < \begin{equation}
452 < round(x)=\lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{
453 < }x\geqslant0
454 < \end{equation}
455 < %
456 <
457 < \begin{equation}
458 < round(x)=\lceil{x-0.5}\rceil\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }if\text{ }x<0
459 < \end{equation}
460 <
461 <
462 < For example, $round(3.6)=4$,$round(3.1)=3$, $round(-3.6)=-4$, $round(-3.1)=-3$.
463 <
464 < Finally, we could get the minimum image by transforming back to real space,%
465 <
466 < \begin{equation}
467 < \overrightarrow{r^{\prime}}=H^{-1}\overrightarrow{s^{\prime}}%
468 < \end{equation}
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