Dear Gromacs users and developers,
I found Gromacs 4.5.5 problematic in NEMD calculations for viscosity. As a 
simple benchmark, I did some calculations for water (TIP5P) and the results are 
confusing.
I applied two methods for the calculation in 300K, 512 waters: 1. momentum 
fluctuations, 2. periodic pertubation method, with Gromacs 4.5.5 double 
precision, each for 500 ps. (I understand it's short but it is just for 
benchmark and a longer calculation won't change the result qualitatively.) The 
first one is an equilibrium simulation (saving coordinates and velocity every 
10 fs) and gives results as eta = 0.564 X 10^(-3) kg/(m * s), from the fitting 
of eta(k)=eta*(1-A*k^2) from g_tcaf, which is reasonable compared to 
experimental results and TIP5P results from earlier work. However, with 
periodic pertubation method, which is NEMD with cos_acceleration = 0.025 
nm*ps^(-2) according to the original paper for SPC water, the result from 
g_energy gives 1/Viscosity as 103.276 m*s/kg. That means the viscosity is 9.68 
X 10^(-3) kg/(m * s), which is an order of magnitude higher compared to the 
previous result! (Such result is reproduced for larger system, different 
cos_acceleration ( 
 < 1 nm*ps^(-2)) and longer runs.)
As a next step, I went into the code in mdlib and found that the code is 
relatively old. (I searched the mailing list and found most posts about such 
method is around 2007, and the ones around 2010 mentioning the similar 
observation but not responded.) So I used Gromacs 3.3.3 with the same inputs as 
previous for NEMD and performed the simulation again. Now with g_energy, 
1/Viscosity is 2080.94 m*s/kg. (It doesn't mention specifically in the output 
for the unit, as stated as SI unit. So it should be m*s/kg, right?) Then the 
viscosity is 0.481 X 10^(-3) kg/(m * s), and qualitatively agrees with the 
previous results.
The original paper: http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v116/i1/p209_s1
So the question is: Am I doing anything wrong? Or is the unit for viscosity in 
3.3.3 different from 4.5.5? Or is NEMD just not a good method to calculate 
viscosity? (For the last question, it seems to be an open field for research.) 
I have to admit that the fluctuation of the results is very large (may due to 
the short simulation with small box) but I don't think it will change the 
results qualitatively.
Any suggestions will be really appreciated. Thank you in advanced for your help!
Thanks,Zhe                                        
-- 
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