On 6/12/2010 9:43 PM, Sebastian Fritsch wrote:
Hi everybody,


I have some trouble setting up topology for my, I admit, quite unusual system. I need to constrain the center of masses of two groups of atoms to a fixed 'bond' length. Since I have to do this for every molecule I cannot use the 'pull constraint' of the free energy code.

Thus in my topology I defined a com vsite for each group and tried to apply a constraint between them. The atoms within each group are connected by harmonic springs forming a ring polymer (for those of you who know it: this is supposed to become the path integral representation in the end...)
The topol.top for a single molecule test system looks like this:

[ defaults ]
; nbfunc   comb-rule    gen-pairs    fudgeLJ    fudgeQQ
 1       1        no        1.0    1.0
[ atomtypes ]
;name mass charge ptype C6 C12 ; sigma epsilon
A      1.00800     0  A      0           0
B      1.00800     0  A      0           0
C      1.00800     0  A      0           0
VS     0.000       0   V      0           0
[ moleculetype ]
; molname      nrexcl
SOL        0
[ atoms ]
; id at resnr resnm atnm       cgnr      charge
1  VS    1  A         V1        1         0
2  VS    1  B         V2        2         0
3 A 1 A A 3 0 4 B 1 A B 4 0 5 C 1 A C 5 0 6 A 1 B A 6 0 7 B 1 B B 7 0 8 C 1 B C 8 0 [ virtual_sitesN ]
;
1 2 3 4 5
2 2 6 7 8
[ bonds ]
; ai aj
3 4 1 0 1687
4 5 1 0 1687
5 3 1 0 1687
6 7 1 0 1687
7 8 1 0 1687
8 6 1 0 1687
[ constraints ]
; ai   aj funct   length_A
1 2 1  0.1633
[ system ]
TEST
[ molecules ]
SOL     1

The conf.gro is setup such that the constraint is satisfied initially.

When I run the simulation with LINCS the constraint seem to be not applied at all, the distance beetween the two vsites increases just as in free diffusion. With SHAKE the system explodes immediately (without error message, but every value is inf or nan). I am running the system with the sd integrator in (vers. 4.5.3) but also tried md and no thermostat, with no change in results.

I appreciate any advice on this!

Thanks,
Sebastian

I can't see anything that looks wrong. Make sure you inspect the output of grompp thoroughly for clues about how it's interpreting the .top file. You may like to use gmxcheck to compare the .tpr files produced under various permutations to see that things look like they're working correctly (remember atom numbers will start from zero in the output). Try putting the virtual site atoms after the real atoms in the ordering.

Mark
--
gmx-users mailing list    [email protected]
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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/Support/Mailing_Lists

Reply via email to