André Farias de Moura wrote:
Hi Michael,
if you are not interested in the substrate dynamics, then you could try
the freeze group options (freezegrps and freezedim). I have used these
options for graphite and it worked just fine.
best,
André
In addition to that, you may consider using pbc = full to get an infinite system
and potentially avoid some of those edge effects it looks like you are seeing.
I know others have used that kind of setup with carbon nanotubes (not my area of
expertise, but I've read the discussions).
-Justin
Dear Listmembers,
This post is quite lengthy because it contains several different problems
that
I came across during my simulations and that I cannot figure out up to
now. I
included some links to pictures to give you some visualization and would
be
glad for every suggestion or hint even to part of my problems.
Generally for my simulations I need substrates of silicon oxide and
graphite
(each one in different simulations). The substrate fills the simulation
box
completely in x-y direction so it should look like an infinite surface
considering the periodic boundary conditions.
The simulation with silicon oxide is working fine but I experienced some
strange thing though: When the .gro file contains negative coordinates and
I
generate a .tpr for 4 nodes the structure is messed up totally after
energy
minimization (although it converges and gives no errors). I guess that the
breaking up in four parts is somehow connected to the 4 nodes, because
generating and running a 1 node .tpr solves this problem and the structure
keeps intact after em - see pictures here: ( http://tinyurl.com/59zfda ).
When
I shift the coordinates in the .gro with editconf so that every coordinate
is
positive the structure can be em with both 1 or 4 node without problems.
For the main md I have to stick with 1 node anyway because I get a "Shake
block crossing node boundaries" error when I try to use 4 nodes. I found
the
advise to use less nodes in the mailing list archives and as I said it
works
for me, too, but is there any other way to get around this? For the test
runs
I'm doing now 1 node is fine, but for the real simulations later on I
would
like to use more nodes because the system will get bigger...
With the graphite I have another problem: Again I have to stick with only
one
node, otherwise the structure is broken after energy minimization (with 4
nodes http://tinyurl.com/5eqngz ). Additionally here the energy
minimization
is not converging even after 2500 steps, forces keep in the range of 10^4
but
I can still do a md with this file that is not exploding (md with the
starting
structure without any energy minimization will result in an exploding
system
as one might expect). After energy minimization the graphite sheets (four
are
in the simulation) are bended up/down correspondently to the connected
periodic boundary at the edges of the simulation box (box is triclinic,
http://tinyurl.com/5m72ke ). When I run an md with this as starting
structure
without position restraints on the carbon atoms, the sheets cleave
beginning
from the edges and then reunite in a curled conformation within 10ps (
http://tinyurl.com/5j4l3z ).
If I put position restraints on all carbon atoms the graphite keeps flat,
but
of course I still have the up/down bending at the box edges, which I also
want
to get rid off to have a real "infinite" graphite surface.
First I thought that this was maybe a problem of my graphite structure not
fitting into my simulation box (hence the curling of the surface) but I
checked the bonding lengths and b0 in the topology, the unit cell vectors
and
box vectors thoroughly and everything seems to be right. If I copy my
simulation box and shift it by one of the box vectors I get a perfect
continuation without any deviation on the boundaries, so everything seems
like
it should be for the starting structure.
I also simulated the same graphite sheets within a bigger box, so that
border
carbons could not feel their counterparts over the periodic boundaries.
That
gave no distortion at the edges after em and the em converged, but of
course
in this way I cannot get an continous surface.
Even stranger is, that after em the whole structure coordinates are
shifted
into the neighbouring periodic cell! For a bigger system with some
additionally molecules that should absorb to the graphite surface the
graphite
sheets even ended up in different periodic images of the simulation box
after
em ( http://tinyurl.com/5uaxfa ). Maybe that's more a visualization
problem
because the following md simulation shows, that the molecules adsorb to
the
surface nevertheless (as one would suggest from pbc). Of course I can
reconfigure my .gro for visualization by substracting or adding the box
vectors untill all atoms end up inside the 'real' simulation box, but is
it
really supposed to behave that way, or is there something definitely wrong
with my structure?
I saw this "shifting" of the whole substrate into another periodic image
of
the simulation box also in the simulation with the silicon substrate: it
'jumped' into the periodic cell and then jumped back one frame later.
The other present (small) molecules stayed in the real simulation box all
the
time. I guess that this is maybe a problem caused by the substrate
"molecule"
filling up the whole simulation cell (at least in xy), but is there a way
of
getting Gromacs to always write out coordinates that lie within the real
simulation cell instead of an periodic image?
And is there a way of defining bonds over the periodic boundaries? When I
tried this it always seemed as if Gromacs interpreted these bonds as
extremly
overstretched bonds (that are stretched over the whole simulation box
instead of just reaching the "short way" over the periodic boundary)
yielding
crippled structures ( http://tinyurl.com/54uvs4 ).
All simulations used the ffG43b1 force field. Cutoffs of 1.2 and an Rlist
of
1.4. Coulomb was shifted from 0.0 and VdW from 0.9. Timestep was 2 fs and
pbc
= xyz. The boxes were large in z direction to generate xy pbc. I can also
put
the topologies online if someone would like to look at them.
I hope anyone can give me some advice because although I tried a lot of
things
right now I feel not like coming close to a solution for my problems. :(
Best regards,
Michael
--
http://www.defux.de
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&
Prof. Dr. André Farias de Moura
Departamento de Química
Universidade Federal de São Carlos
São Carlos - SP - Brasil
tel. 16-3351-8090
&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
--
========================================
Justin A. Lemkul
Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Biochemistry
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
jalemkul[at]vt.edu | (540) 231-9080
http://www.bevanlab.biochem.vt.edu/Pages/Personal/justin
========================================
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
