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 suported 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 |
< |
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 |
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). |
14 |
> |
\begin{lstlisting}[caption={[Specifier for molecules and atoms] A sample specification of 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 |
< |
As stated previously, one of the features that sets {\sc OOPSE} apart |
25 |
> |
Atoms can be collected into secondary srtructures such as rigid bodies |
26 |
> |
or molecules. The molecule is a way for {\sc oopse} to keep track of |
27 |
> |
the atoms in a simulation in logical manner. Molecular units store the |
28 |
> |
identities of all the atoms associated with themselves, and are |
29 |
> |
responsible for the evaluation of their own internal interactions |
30 |
> |
(\emph{i.e.}~bonds, bends, and torsions). Scheme \ref{sch:AtmMole} |
31 |
> |
shws how one creates a molecule in the \texttt{.mdl} files. The |
32 |
> |
position of the atoms given in the declaration are relative to the |
33 |
> |
origin of the molecule, and is used when creating a system containing |
34 |
> |
the molecule. |
35 |
> |
|
36 |
> |
As stated previously, one of the features that sets {\sc oopse} apart |
37 |
|
from most of the current molecular simulation packages is the ability |
38 |
|
to handle rigid body dynamics. Rigid bodies are non-spherical |
39 |
|
particles or collections of particles that have a constant internal |
40 |
|
potential and move collectively.\cite{Goldstein01} They are not |
41 |
< |
included in most simulation packages because of the need to |
42 |
< |
consider orientational degrees of freedom and include an integrator |
43 |
< |
that accurately propagates these motions in time. |
41 |
> |
included in most simulation packages because of the requirement to |
42 |
> |
propagate the orientational degrees of freedom. Until recently, |
43 |
> |
integrators which propagate orientational motion have been lacking. |
44 |
|
|
45 |
|
Moving a rigid body involves determination of both the force and |
46 |
|
torque applied by the surroundings, which directly affect the |
47 |
< |
translation and rotation in turn. In order to accumulate the total |
48 |
< |
force on a rigid body, the external forces must first be calculated |
49 |
< |
for all the internal particles. The total force on the rigid body is |
50 |
< |
simply the sum of these external forces. Accumulation of the total |
51 |
< |
torque on the rigid body is more complex than the force in that it is |
52 |
< |
the torque applied on the center of mass that dictates rotational |
53 |
< |
motion. The summation of this torque is given by |
47 |
> |
translational and rotational motion in turn. In order to accumulate |
48 |
> |
the total force on a rigid body, the external forces and torques must |
49 |
> |
first be calculated for all the internal particles. The total force on |
50 |
> |
the rigid body is simply the sum of these external forces. |
51 |
> |
Accumulation of the total torque on the rigid body is more complex |
52 |
> |
than the force in that it is the torque applied on the center of mass |
53 |
> |
that dictates rotational motion. The torque on rigid body {\it i} is |
54 |
|
\begin{equation} |
55 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_i= |
56 |
< |
\sum_{a}(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia}, |
55 |
> |
\boldsymbol{\tau}_i= |
56 |
> |
\sum_{a}(\mathbf{r}_{ia}-\mathbf{r}_i)\times \mathbf{f}_{ia} |
57 |
> |
+ \boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}, |
58 |
|
\label{eq:torqueAccumulate} |
59 |
|
\end{equation} |
60 |
< |
where $\mathbf{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque about and |
61 |
< |
position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$ |
62 |
< |
and $\mathbf{r}_{ia}$ are the force on and position of the component |
63 |
< |
particles of the rigid body.\cite{allen87:csl} |
60 |
> |
where $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ are the torque on and |
61 |
> |
position of the center of mass respectively, while $\mathbf{f}_{ia}$, |
62 |
> |
$\mathbf{r}_{ia}$, and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{ia}$ are the force on, |
63 |
> |
position of, and torque on the component particles of the rigid body. |
64 |
|
|
65 |
< |
The application of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of |
65 |
> |
The summation of the total torque is done in the body fixed axis of |
66 |
|
the rigid body. In order to move between the space fixed and body |
67 |
|
fixed coordinate axes, parameters describing the orientation must be |
68 |
|
maintained for each rigid body. At a minimum, the rotation matrix |
69 |
< |
(\textbf{A}) can be described and propagated by the three Euler angles |
70 |
< |
($\phi, \theta, \text{and} \psi$), where \textbf{A} is composed of |
69 |
> |
(\textbf{A}) can be described by the three Euler angles ($\phi, |
70 |
> |
\theta,$ and $\psi$), where the elements of \textbf{A} are composed of |
71 |
|
trigonometric operations involving $\phi, \theta,$ and |
72 |
< |
$\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid rotational limitations |
72 |
> |
$\psi$.\cite{Goldstein01} In order to avoid numerical instabilities |
73 |
|
inherent in using the Euler angles, the four parameter ``quaternion'' |
74 |
< |
scheme can be used instead, where \textbf{A} is composed of arithmetic |
75 |
< |
operations involving the four components of a quaternion ($q_0, q_1, |
76 |
< |
q_2, \text{and} q_3$).\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads |
77 |
< |
to performance enhancements, particularly for very small |
74 |
> |
scheme is often used. The elements of \textbf{A} can be expressed as |
75 |
> |
arithmetic operations involving the four quaternions ($q_0, q_1, q_2,$ |
76 |
> |
and $q_3$).\cite{allen87:csl} Use of quaternions also leads to |
77 |
> |
performance enhancements, particularly for very small |
78 |
|
systems.\cite{Evans77} |
79 |
|
|
80 |
< |
{\sc OOPSE} utilizes a relatively new scheme that uses the entire nine |
81 |
< |
parameter rotation matrix internally. Further discussion on this |
82 |
< |
choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}. |
80 |
> |
{\sc oopse} utilizes a relatively new scheme that propagates the |
81 |
> |
entire nine parameter rotation matrix internally. Further discussion |
82 |
> |
on this choice can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:integrate}. An example |
83 |
> |
definition of a riged body can be seen in Scheme |
84 |
> |
\ref{sch:rigidBody}. The positions in the atom definitions are the |
85 |
> |
placements of the atoms relative to the origin of the rigid body, |
86 |
> |
which itself has a position relative to the origin of the molecule. |
87 |
|
|
88 |
+ |
\begin{lstlisting}[caption={[Defining rigid bodies]A sample definition of a rigid body},label={sch:rigidBody}] |
89 |
+ |
molecule{ |
90 |
+ |
name = "TIP3P_water"; |
91 |
+ |
nRigidBodies = 1; |
92 |
+ |
rigidBody[0]{ |
93 |
+ |
nAtoms = 3; |
94 |
+ |
atom[0]{ |
95 |
+ |
type = "O_TIP3P"; |
96 |
+ |
position( 0.0, 0.0, -0.06556 ); |
97 |
+ |
} |
98 |
+ |
atom[1]{ |
99 |
+ |
type = "H_TIP3P"; |
100 |
+ |
position( 0.0, 0.75695, 0.52032 ); |
101 |
+ |
} |
102 |
+ |
atom[2]{ |
103 |
+ |
type = "H_TIP3P"; |
104 |
+ |
position( 0.0, -0.75695, 0.52032 ); |
105 |
+ |
} |
106 |
+ |
position( 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ); |
107 |
+ |
orientation( 0.0, 0.0, 1.0 ); |
108 |
+ |
} |
109 |
+ |
} |
110 |
+ |
\end{lstlisting} |
111 |
+ |
|
112 |
|
\subsection{\label{sec:LJPot}The Lennard Jones Potential} |
113 |
|
|
114 |
< |
The most basic force field implemented in OOPSE is the Lennard-Jones |
115 |
< |
potential. The Lennard-Jones potential. Which mimics the Van der Waals |
116 |
< |
interaction at long distances, and uses an emperical repulsion at |
117 |
< |
short distances. The Lennard-Jones potential is given by: |
114 |
> |
The most basic force field implemented in {\sc oopse} is the |
115 |
> |
Lennard-Jones potential, which mimics the van der Waals interaction at |
116 |
> |
long distances, and uses an empirical repulsion at short |
117 |
> |
distances. The Lennard-Jones potential is given by: |
118 |
|
\begin{equation} |
119 |
|
V_{\text{LJ}}(r_{ij}) = |
120 |
|
4\epsilon_{ij} \biggl[ |
123 |
|
\biggr] |
124 |
|
\label{eq:lennardJonesPot} |
125 |
|
\end{equation} |
126 |
< |
Where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between particle $i$ and $j$, |
126 |
> |
Where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between particles $i$ and $j$, |
127 |
|
$\sigma_{ij}$ scales the length of the interaction, and |
128 |
< |
$\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the well depth of the potential. |
128 |
> |
$\epsilon_{ij}$ scales the well depth of the potential. Scheme |
129 |
> |
\ref{sch:LJFF} gives and example partial \texttt{.bass} file that |
130 |
> |
shows a system of 108 Ar particles simulated with the Lennard-Jones |
131 |
> |
force field. |
132 |
|
|
133 |
+ |
\begin{lstlisting}[caption={[Invocation of the Lennard-Jones force field] A sample system using the Lennard-Jones force field.},label={sch:LJFF}] |
134 |
+ |
|
135 |
+ |
/* |
136 |
+ |
* The Ar molecule is specified |
137 |
+ |
* external to the.bass file |
138 |
+ |
*/ |
139 |
+ |
|
140 |
+ |
#include "argon.mdl" |
141 |
+ |
|
142 |
+ |
nComponents = 1; |
143 |
+ |
component{ |
144 |
+ |
type = "Ar"; |
145 |
+ |
nMol = 108; |
146 |
+ |
} |
147 |
+ |
|
148 |
+ |
/* |
149 |
+ |
* The initial configuration is generated |
150 |
+ |
* before the simulation is invoked. |
151 |
+ |
*/ |
152 |
+ |
|
153 |
+ |
initialConfig = "./argon.init"; |
154 |
+ |
|
155 |
+ |
forceField = "LJ"; |
156 |
+ |
\end{lstlisting} |
157 |
+ |
|
158 |
|
Because this potential is calculated between all pairs, the force |
159 |
|
evaluation can become computationally expensive for large systems. To |
160 |
< |
keep the pair evaluation to a manegable number, OOPSE employs a |
161 |
< |
cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be |
162 |
< |
$2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest Lennard-Jones length |
163 |
< |
parameter in the system. Truncating the calculation at |
164 |
< |
$r_{\text{cut}}$ introduces a discontinuity into the potential |
160 |
> |
keep the pair evaluations to a manageable number, {\sc oopse} employs |
161 |
> |
a cut-off radius.\cite{allen87:csl} The cutoff radius is set to be |
162 |
> |
$2.5\sigma_{ii}$, where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the largest Lennard-Jones |
163 |
> |
length parameter present in the simulation. Truncating the calculation |
164 |
> |
at $r_{\text{cut}}$ introduces a discontinuity into the potential |
165 |
|
energy. To offset this discontinuity, the energy value at |
166 |
< |
$r_{\text{cut}}$ is subtracted from the entire potential. This causes |
167 |
< |
the potential to go to zero at the cut-off radius. |
166 |
> |
$r_{\text{cut}}$ is subtracted from the potential. This causes the |
167 |
> |
potential to go to zero smoothly at the cut-off radius. |
168 |
|
|
169 |
|
Interactions between dissimilar particles requires the generation of |
170 |
|
cross term parameters for $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$. These are |
181 |
|
\end{equation} |
182 |
|
|
183 |
|
|
184 |
+ |
|
185 |
|
\subsection{\label{sec:DUFF}Dipolar Unified-Atom Force Field} |
186 |
|
|
187 |
< |
The Dipolar Unified-atom Force Field ({\sc duff}) was developed to |
188 |
< |
simulate lipid bilayers. The systems require a model capable of forming |
189 |
< |
bilayers, while still being sufficiently computationally efficient to |
190 |
< |
allow simulations of large systems ($\approx$100's of phospholipids, |
191 |
< |
$\approx$1000's of waters) for long times ($\approx$10's of |
192 |
< |
nanoseconds). |
187 |
> |
The dipolar unified-atom force field ({\sc duff}) was developed to |
188 |
> |
simulate lipid bilayers. The simulations require a model capable of |
189 |
> |
forming bilayers, while still being sufficiently computationally |
190 |
> |
efficient to allow large systems ($\approx$100's of phospholipids, |
191 |
> |
$\approx$1000's of waters) to be simulated for long times |
192 |
> |
($\approx$10's of nanoseconds). |
193 |
|
|
194 |
< |
With this goal in mind, {\sc duff} has no point charges. Charge |
195 |
< |
neutral distributions were replaced with dipoles, while most atoms and |
196 |
< |
groups of atoms were reduced to Lennard-Jones interaction sites. This |
197 |
< |
simplification cuts the length scale of long range interactions from |
198 |
< |
$\frac{1}{r}$ to $\frac{1}{r^3}$, allowing us to avoid the |
199 |
< |
computationally expensive Ewald sum. Instead, we can use |
194 |
> |
With this goal in mind, {\sc duff} has no point |
195 |
> |
charges. Charge-neutral distributions were replaced with dipoles, |
196 |
> |
while most atoms and groups of atoms were reduced to Lennard-Jones |
197 |
> |
interaction sites. This simplification cuts the length scale of long |
198 |
> |
range interactions from $\frac{1}{r}$ to $\frac{1}{r^3}$, allowing us |
199 |
> |
to avoid the computationally expensive Ewald sum. Instead, we can use |
200 |
|
neighbor-lists, reaction field, and cutoff radii for the dipolar |
201 |
|
interactions. |
202 |
|
|
203 |
|
As an example, lipid head-groups in {\sc duff} are represented as |
204 |
|
point dipole interaction sites. By placing a dipole of 20.6~Debye at |
205 |
|
the head group center of mass, our model mimics the head group of |
206 |
< |
phosphatidylcholine.\cite{Cevc87} Additionally, a Lennard-Jones site |
207 |
< |
is located at the pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is |
208 |
< |
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 |
209 |
< |
repaarameterization of the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye |
206 |
> |
phosphatidylcholine.\cite{Cevc87} Additionally, a large Lennard-Jones |
207 |
> |
site is located at the pseudoatom's center of mass. The model is |
208 |
> |
illustrated by the dark grey atom in Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}. The |
209 |
> |
water model we use to complement the dipoles of the lipids is our |
210 |
> |
reparameterization of the soft sticky dipole (SSD) model of Ichiye |
211 |
|
\emph{et al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} |
212 |
|
|
213 |
|
\begin{figure} |
219 |
|
\label{fig:lipidModel} |
220 |
|
\end{figure} |
221 |
|
|
222 |
< |
Turning to the tails of the phospholipids, we have used a set of |
223 |
< |
scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups with Lennard-Jones |
224 |
< |
sites. For this, we have used the TraPPE force field of Siepmann |
222 |
> |
We have used a set of scalable parameters to model the alkyl groups |
223 |
> |
with Lennard-Jones sites. For this, we have borrowed parameters from |
224 |
> |
the TraPPE force field of Siepmann |
225 |
|
\emph{et al}.\cite{Siepmann1998} TraPPE is a unified-atom |
226 |
|
representation of n-alkanes, which is parametrized against phase |
227 |
< |
equilibria using Gibbs Monte Carlo simulation |
227 |
> |
equilibria using Gibbs ensemble Monte Carlo simulation |
228 |
|
techniques.\cite{Siepmann1998} One of the advantages of TraPPE is that |
229 |
|
it generalizes the types of atoms in an alkyl chain to keep the number |
230 |
|
of pseudoatoms to a minimum; the parameters for an atom such as |
231 |
|
$\text{CH}_2$ do not change depending on what species are bonded to |
232 |
|
it. |
233 |
|
|
234 |
< |
TraPPE also constrains of all bonds to be of fixed length. Typically, |
234 |
> |
TraPPE also constrains all bonds to be of fixed length. Typically, |
235 |
|
bond vibrations are the fastest motions in a molecular dynamic |
236 |
|
simulation. Small time steps between force evaluations must be used to |
237 |
< |
ensure adequate sampling of the bond potential conservation of |
238 |
< |
energy. By constraining the bond lengths, larger time steps may be |
239 |
< |
used when integrating the equations of motion. |
237 |
> |
ensure adequate sampling of the bond potential to ensure conservation |
238 |
> |
of energy. By constraining the bond lengths, larger time steps may be |
239 |
> |
used when integrating the equations of motion. A simulation using {\sc |
240 |
> |
duff} is illustrated in Scheme \ref{sch:DUFF}. |
241 |
|
|
242 |
+ |
\begin{lstlisting}[caption={[Invocation of {\sc duff}]Sample \texttt{.bass} file showing a simulation utilizing {\sc duff}},label={sch:DUFF}] |
243 |
|
|
244 |
+ |
#include "water.mdl" |
245 |
+ |
#include "lipid.mdl" |
246 |
+ |
|
247 |
+ |
nComponents = 2; |
248 |
+ |
component{ |
249 |
+ |
type = "simpleLipid_16"; |
250 |
+ |
nMol = 60; |
251 |
+ |
} |
252 |
+ |
|
253 |
+ |
component{ |
254 |
+ |
type = "SSD_water"; |
255 |
+ |
nMol = 1936; |
256 |
+ |
} |
257 |
+ |
|
258 |
+ |
initialConfig = "bilayer.init"; |
259 |
+ |
|
260 |
+ |
forceField = "DUFF"; |
261 |
+ |
|
262 |
+ |
\end{lstlisting} |
263 |
+ |
|
264 |
|
\subsubsection{\label{subSec:energyFunctions}{\sc duff} Energy Functions} |
265 |
|
|
266 |
< |
The total energy of function in {\sc duff} is given by the following: |
266 |
> |
The total potential energy function in {\sc duff} is |
267 |
|
\begin{equation} |
268 |
< |
V_{\text{Total}} = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} |
268 |
> |
V = \sum^{N}_{I=1} V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} |
269 |
|
+ \sum^{N}_{I=1} \sum_{J>I} V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} |
270 |
|
\label{eq:totalPotential} |
271 |
|
\end{equation} |
272 |
< |
Where $V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}$ is the internal potential of a molecule: |
272 |
> |
Where $V^{I}_{\text{Internal}}$ is the internal potential of molecule $I$: |
273 |
|
\begin{equation} |
274 |
|
V^{I}_{\text{Internal}} = |
275 |
|
\sum_{\theta_{ijk} \in I} V_{\text{bend}}(\theta_{ijk}) |
281 |
|
\label{eq:internalPotential} |
282 |
|
\end{equation} |
283 |
|
Here $V_{\text{bend}}$ is the bend potential for all 1, 3 bonded pairs |
284 |
< |
within the molecule, and $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion potential |
284 |
> |
within the molecule $I$, and $V_{\text{torsion}}$ is the torsion potential |
285 |
|
for all 1, 4 bonded pairs. The pairwise portions of the internal |
286 |
|
potential are excluded for pairs that are closer than three bonds, |
287 |
|
i.e.~atom pairs farther away than a torsion are included in the |
290 |
|
|
291 |
|
The bend potential of a molecule is represented by the following function: |
292 |
|
\begin{equation} |
293 |
< |
V_{\theta_{ijk}} = k_{\theta}( \theta_{ijk} - \theta_0 )^2 \label{eq:bendPot} |
293 |
> |
V_{\text{bend}}(\theta_{ijk}) = k_{\theta}( \theta_{ijk} - \theta_0 )^2 \label{eq:bendPot} |
294 |
|
\end{equation} |
295 |
|
Where $\theta_{ijk}$ is the angle defined by atoms $i$, $j$, and $k$ |
296 |
< |
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}), and $\theta_0$ is the equilibrium |
297 |
< |
bond angle. $k_{\theta}$ is the force constant which determines the |
296 |
> |
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}), $\theta_0$ is the equilibrium |
297 |
> |
bond angle, and $k_{\theta}$ is the force constant which determines the |
298 |
|
strength of the harmonic bend. The parameters for $k_{\theta}$ and |
299 |
< |
$\theta_0$ are based off of those in TraPPE.\cite{Siepmann1998} |
299 |
> |
$\theta_0$ are borrowed from those in TraPPE.\cite{Siepmann1998} |
300 |
|
|
301 |
< |
The torsion potential and parameters are also taken from TraPPE. It is |
301 |
> |
The torsion potential and parameters are also borrowed from TraPPE. It is |
302 |
|
of the form: |
303 |
|
\begin{equation} |
304 |
|
V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi) = c_1[1 + \cos \phi] |
306 |
|
+ c_3[1 + \cos(3\phi)] |
307 |
|
\label{eq:origTorsionPot} |
308 |
|
\end{equation} |
309 |
< |
Here $\phi_{ijkl}$ is the angle defined by four bonded neighbors $i$, |
309 |
> |
Here $\phi$ is the angle defined by four bonded neighbors $i$, |
310 |
|
$j$, $k$, and $l$ (again, see Fig.~\ref{fig:lipidModel}). For |
311 |
< |
computaional efficency, the torsion potential has been recast after |
312 |
< |
the method of CHARMM\cite{charmm1983} whereby the angle series is |
311 |
> |
computational efficiency, the torsion potential has been recast after |
312 |
> |
the method of CHARMM,\cite{charmm1983} in which the angle series is |
313 |
|
converted to a power series of the form: |
314 |
|
\begin{equation} |
315 |
< |
V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi_{ijkl}) = |
315 |
> |
V_{\text{torsion}}(\phi) = |
316 |
|
k_3 \cos^3 \phi + k_2 \cos^2 \phi + k_1 \cos \phi + k_0 |
317 |
|
\label{eq:torsionPot} |
318 |
|
\end{equation} |
323 |
|
k_2 &= 2 c_2 \\ |
324 |
|
k_3 &= 4c_3 |
325 |
|
\end{align*} |
326 |
< |
By recasting the equation to a power series, repeated trigonometric |
327 |
< |
evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the potential. |
326 |
> |
By recasting the potential as a power series, repeated trigonometric |
327 |
> |
evaluations are avoided during the calculation of the potential energy. |
328 |
|
|
329 |
|
|
330 |
< |
The cross portion of the total potential, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is |
330 |
> |
The cross potential between molecules $I$ and $J$, $V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}}$, is |
331 |
|
as follows: |
332 |
|
\begin{equation} |
333 |
|
V^{IJ}_{\text{Cross}} = |
341 |
|
\end{equation} |
342 |
|
Where $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard Jones potential, |
343 |
|
$V_{\text{dipole}}$ is the dipole dipole potential, and |
344 |
< |
$V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD |
345 |
< |
model. Note that not all atom types include all interactions. |
344 |
> |
$V_{\text{sticky}}$ is the sticky potential defined by the SSD model |
345 |
> |
(Sec.~\ref{sec:SSD}). Note that not all atom types include all |
346 |
> |
interactions. |
347 |
|
|
348 |
|
The dipole-dipole potential has the following form: |
349 |
|
\begin{equation} |
358 |
|
\end{equation} |
359 |
|
Here $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the vector starting at atom $i$ pointing |
360 |
|
towards $j$, and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_j$ |
361 |
< |
are the Euler angles of atom $i$ and $j$ respectively. $|\mu_i|$ is |
362 |
< |
the magnitude of the dipole moment of atom $i$ and |
363 |
< |
$\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i$ is the standard unit orientation vector of |
364 |
< |
$\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$. |
361 |
> |
are the orientational degrees of freedom for atoms $i$ and $j$ |
362 |
> |
respectively. $|\mu_i|$ is the magnitude of the dipole moment of atom |
363 |
> |
$i$, $\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}_i$ is the standard unit orientation |
364 |
> |
vector of $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$, and $\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}_{ij}$ is |
365 |
> |
the unit vector pointing along $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$. |
366 |
|
|
367 |
|
|
368 |
< |
\subsection{\label{sec:SSD}The {\sc DUFF} Water Models: SSD/E and SSD/RF} |
368 |
> |
\subsubsection{\label{sec:SSD}The {\sc duff} Water Models: SSD/E and SSD/RF} |
369 |
|
|
370 |
|
In the interest of computational efficiency, the default solvent used |
371 |
< |
in {\sc oopse} is the Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD) water model. SSD was |
372 |
< |
developed by Ichiye \emph{et al.} as a modified form of the |
373 |
< |
hard-sphere water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and |
371 |
> |
by {\sc oopse} is the extended Soft Sticky Dipole (SSD/E) water |
372 |
> |
model.\cite{Gezelter04} The original SSD was developed by Ichiye |
373 |
> |
\emph{et al.}\cite{liu96:new_model} as a modified form of the hard-sphere |
374 |
> |
water model proposed by Bratko, Blum, and |
375 |
|
Luzar.\cite{Bratko85,Bratko95} It consists of a single point dipole |
376 |
|
with a Lennard-Jones core and a sticky potential that directs the |
377 |
|
particles to assume the proper hydrogen bond orientation in the first |
423 |
|
while $w^\prime$ is a purely empirical function. A more detailed |
424 |
|
description of the functional parts and variables in this potential |
425 |
|
can be found in the original SSD |
426 |
< |
articles.\cite{Ichiye96,Ichiye96b,Ichiye99,Ichiye03} |
426 |
> |
articles.\cite{liu96:new_model,liu96:monte_carlo,chandra99:ssd_md,Ichiye03} |
427 |
|
|
428 |
|
Since SSD is a single-point {\it dipolar} model, the force |
429 |
|
calculations are simplified significantly relative to the standard |
430 |
|
{\it charged} multi-point models. In the original Monte Carlo |
431 |
|
simulations using this model, Ichiye {\it et al.} reported that using |
432 |
|
SSD decreased computer time by a factor of 6-7 compared to other |
433 |
< |
models.\cite{Ichiye96} What is most impressive is that this savings |
433 |
> |
models.\cite{liu96:new_model} What is most impressive is that these savings |
434 |
|
did not come at the expense of accurate depiction of the liquid state |
435 |
|
properties. Indeed, SSD maintains reasonable agreement with the Soper |
436 |
< |
data for the structural features of liquid |
437 |
< |
water.\cite{Soper86,Ichiye96} Additionally, the dynamical properties |
436 |
> |
diffraction data for the structural features of liquid |
437 |
> |
water.\cite{Soper86,liu96:new_model} Additionally, the dynamical properties |
438 |
|
exhibited by SSD agree with experiment better than those of more |
439 |
|
computationally expensive models (like TIP3P and |
440 |
< |
SPC/E).\cite{Ichiye99} The combination of speed and accurate depiction |
440 |
> |
SPC/E).\cite{chandra99:ssd_md} The combination of speed and accurate depiction |
441 |
|
of solvent properties makes SSD a very attractive model for the |
442 |
|
simulation of large scale biochemical simulations. |
443 |
|
|
444 |
|
Recent constant pressure simulations revealed issues in the original |
445 |
|
SSD model that led to lower than expected densities at all target |
446 |
|
pressures.\cite{Ichiye03,Gezelter04} The default model in {\sc oopse} |
447 |
< |
is SSD/E, a density corrected derivative of SSD that exhibits improved |
448 |
< |
liquid structure and transport behavior. If the use of a reaction |
449 |
< |
field long-range interaction correction is desired, it is recommended |
450 |
< |
that the parameters be modified to those of the SSD/RF model. Solvent |
451 |
< |
parameters can be easily modified in an accompanying {\sc BASS} file |
452 |
< |
as illustrated in the scheme below. A table of the parameter values |
453 |
< |
and the drawbacks and benefits of the different density corrected SSD |
454 |
< |
models can be found in reference \ref{Gezelter04}. |
447 |
> |
is therefore SSD/E, a density corrected derivative of SSD that |
448 |
> |
exhibits improved liquid structure and transport behavior. If the use |
449 |
> |
of a reaction field long-range interaction correction is desired, it |
450 |
> |
is recommended that the parameters be modified to those of the SSD/RF |
451 |
> |
model. Solvent parameters can be easily modified in an accompanying |
452 |
> |
{\sc BASS} file as illustrated in the scheme below. A table of the |
453 |
> |
parameter values and the drawbacks and benefits of the different |
454 |
> |
density corrected SSD models can be found in reference |
455 |
> |
\ref{Gezelter04}. |
456 |
|
|
457 |
< |
!!!Place a {\sc BASS} scheme showing SSD parameters around here!!! |
457 |
> |
\begin{lstlisting}[caption={[A simulation of {\sc ssd} water]An example file showing a simulation including {\sc ssd} water.},label={sch:ssd}] |
458 |
|
|
459 |
+ |
#include "water.mdl" |
460 |
+ |
|
461 |
+ |
nComponents = 1; |
462 |
+ |
component{ |
463 |
+ |
type = "SSD_water"; |
464 |
+ |
nMol = 864; |
465 |
+ |
} |
466 |
+ |
|
467 |
+ |
initialConfig = "liquidWater.init"; |
468 |
+ |
|
469 |
+ |
forceField = "DUFF"; |
470 |
+ |
|
471 |
+ |
/* |
472 |
+ |
* The reactionField flag toggles reaction |
473 |
+ |
* field corrections. |
474 |
+ |
*/ |
475 |
+ |
|
476 |
+ |
reactionField = false; // defaults to false |
477 |
+ |
dielectric = 80.0; // dielectric for reaction field |
478 |
+ |
|
479 |
+ |
/* |
480 |
+ |
* The following two flags set the cutoff |
481 |
+ |
* radius for the electrostatic forces |
482 |
+ |
* as well as the skin thickness of the switching |
483 |
+ |
* function. |
484 |
+ |
*/ |
485 |
+ |
|
486 |
+ |
electrostaticCutoffRadius = 9.2; |
487 |
+ |
electrostaticSkinThickness = 1.38; |
488 |
+ |
|
489 |
+ |
\end{lstlisting} |
490 |
+ |
|
491 |
+ |
|
492 |
|
\subsection{\label{sec:eam}Embedded Atom Method} |
493 |
|
|
494 |
|
Several other molecular dynamics packages\cite{dynamo86} exist which have the |
503 |
|
describes the interaction of the positively charged metal core ions |
504 |
|
with one another. A particular potential description called the |
505 |
|
Embedded Atom Method\cite{Daw84,FBD86,johnson89,Lu97}({\sc eam}) that has |
506 |
< |
particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in OOPSE. A |
506 |
> |
particularly wide adoption has been selected for inclusion in {\sc oopse}. A |
507 |
|
good review of {\sc eam} and other metallic potential formulations was done |
508 |
|
by Voter.\cite{voter} |
509 |
|
|
516 |
|
|
517 |
|
where $F_{i} $ is the embedding function that equates the energy required to embed a |
518 |
|
positively-charged core ion $i$ into a linear superposition of |
519 |
< |
sperically averaged atomic electron densities given by |
519 |
> |
spherically averaged atomic electron densities given by |
520 |
|
$\rho_{i}$. $\phi_{ij}$ is a primarily repulsive pairwise interaction |
521 |
|
between atoms $i$ and $j$. In the original formulation of |
522 |
|
{\sc eam} cite{Daw84}, $\phi_{ij}$ was an entirely repulsive term, however |
529 |
|
|
530 |
|
|
531 |
|
\subsection{\label{Sec:pbc}Periodic Boundary Conditions} |
532 |
< |
|
532 |
> |
|
533 |
> |
\newcommand{\roundme}{\operatorname{round}} |
534 |
> |
|
535 |
|
\textit{Periodic boundary conditions} are widely used to simulate truly |
536 |
|
macroscopic systems with a relatively small number of particles. The |
537 |
< |
simulation box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite |
538 |
< |
lattice. During the simulation, when a particle moves in the primary |
539 |
< |
cell, its image in other boxes move in exactly the same direction with |
540 |
< |
exactly the same orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary |
541 |
< |
cell, one of its images will enter through the opposite face.If the |
542 |
< |
simulation box is large enough to avoid "feeling" the symmetries of |
543 |
< |
the periodic lattice, surface effects can be ignored. Cubic, |
544 |
< |
orthorhombic and parallelepiped are the available periodic cells In |
545 |
< |
OOPSE. We use a matrix to describe the property of the simulation |
546 |
< |
box. Therefore, both the size and shape of the simulation box can be |
547 |
< |
changed during the simulation. The transformation from box space |
548 |
< |
vector $\mathbf{s}$ to its corresponding real space vector |
414 |
< |
$\mathbf{r}$ is defined by |
537 |
> |
simulation box is replicated throughout space to form an infinite lattice. |
538 |
> |
During the simulation, when a particle moves in the primary cell, its image in |
539 |
> |
other boxes move in exactly the same direction with exactly the same |
540 |
> |
orientation.Thus, as a particle leaves the primary cell, one of its images |
541 |
> |
will enter through the opposite face.If the simulation box is large enough to |
542 |
> |
avoid \textquotedblleft feeling\textquotedblright\ the symmetries of the |
543 |
> |
periodic lattice, surface effects can be ignored. Cubic, orthorhombic and |
544 |
> |
parallelepiped are the available periodic cells In OOPSE. We use a matrix to |
545 |
> |
describe the property of the simulation box. Therefore, both the size and |
546 |
> |
shape of the simulation box can be changed during the simulation. The |
547 |
> |
transformation from box space vector $\mathbf{s}$ to its corresponding real |
548 |
> |
space vector $\mathbf{r}$ is defined by |
549 |
|
\begin{equation} |
550 |
< |
\mathbf{r}=\underline{\underline{H}}\cdot\mathbf{s}% |
550 |
> |
\mathbf{r}=\underline{\mathbf{H}}\cdot\mathbf{s}% |
551 |
|
\end{equation} |
552 |
|
|
553 |
|
|
554 |
< |
where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of |
555 |
< |
the three box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the |
556 |
< |
three sides of the simulation box respectively. |
554 |
> |
where $H=(h_{x},h_{y},h_{z})$ is a transformation matrix made up of the three |
555 |
> |
box axis vectors. $h_{x},h_{y}$ and $h_{z}$ represent the three sides of the |
556 |
> |
simulation box respectively. |
557 |
|
|
558 |
< |
To find the minimum image, we convert the real vector to its |
559 |
< |
corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip% |
558 |
> |
To find the minimum image of a vector $\mathbf{r}$, we convert the real vector |
559 |
> |
to its corresponding vector in box space first, \bigskip% |
560 |
|
\begin{equation} |
561 |
< |
\mathbf{s}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{r}% |
561 |
> |
\mathbf{s}=\underline{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{r}% |
562 |
|
\end{equation} |
563 |
|
And then, each element of $\mathbf{s}$ is wrapped to lie between -0.5 to 0.5, |
564 |
|
\begin{equation} |
565 |
< |
s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-round(s_{i}) |
565 |
> |
s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}-\roundme(s_{i}) |
566 |
|
\end{equation} |
567 |
|
where |
568 |
|
|
569 |
|
% |
570 |
|
|
571 |
|
\begin{equation} |
572 |
< |
round(x)=\left\{ |
573 |
< |
\begin{array}[c]{c}% |
572 |
> |
\roundme(x)=\left\{ |
573 |
> |
\begin{array}{cc}% |
574 |
|
\lfloor{x+0.5}\rfloor & \text{if \ }x\geqslant0\\ |
575 |
|
\lceil{x-0.5}\rceil & \text{otherwise}% |
576 |
|
\end{array} |
578 |
|
\end{equation} |
579 |
|
|
580 |
|
|
581 |
< |
For example, $round(3.6)=4$,$round(3.1)=3$, $round(-3.6)=-4$, |
448 |
< |
$round(-3.1)=-3$. |
581 |
> |
For example, $\roundme(3.6)=4$,$\roundme(3.1)=3$, $\roundme(-3.6)=-4$, $\roundme(-3.1)=-3$. |
582 |
|
|
583 |
< |
Finally, we obtain the minimum image coordinates by transforming back |
584 |
< |
to real space,% |
583 |
> |
Finally, we obtain the minimum image coordinates $\mathbf{r}^{\prime}$ by |
584 |
> |
transforming back to real space,% |
585 |
|
|
586 |
|
\begin{equation} |
587 |
< |
\mathbf{r}^{\prime}=\underline{\underline{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{s}^{\prime}% |
587 |
> |
\mathbf{r}^{\prime}=\underline{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{s}^{\prime}% |
588 |
|
\end{equation} |
589 |
|
|