Payman Pirzadeh wrote:
Well, when I set the box, I used 'editconf' command to rescale the box to
have the right density which was ~997. After simulation, I got the
following:

Energy                      Average       RMSD     Fluct.      Drift
Tot-Drift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Density (SI)                956.765    150.266    130.596   0.257477
257.477

The RMSD is very large. Are you sure this is in equilibrium? It could be that your box is exploding. Please check as well that the strange twin range cut-off that you are using is what the original authors used.



Payman

-----Original Message-----
From: gmx-users-boun...@gromacs.org [mailto:gmx-users-boun...@gromacs.org]
On Behalf Of David van der Spoel
Sent: June 8, 2009 11:29 AM
To: Discussion list for GROMACS users
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Energies in simulation

Payman Pirzadeh wrote:
Here is the content of .itp file which I developed:

; This is an itp file to describe water's six-site model by H. Nada and
J.P.
J. M. Van der Eerden, J. Chem. Phys. Vol.118, no.16, pp7401-7413 (2003)
; This model is a combination of TIP4P and TIP5P. It has three LJ sites
and
3 Coulomb sites
; O-H bond length is 0.980A, HOH angle is 108.00degrees, LOL angle is
111.00
degrees, O-M and O-L are about 0.230A and 0.8892A respectively

[ defaults ]
; non-bondedtype        combrule        genpairs        FudgeLJ
FudgeQQ         N
1                       2               NO

[ atomtypes ]
;name   mass    charge  ptype   c6      c12
OW      15.9994 0.0     A       0.3115  0.714845562
HW      1.00800 0.477   A       0.0673  0.11541
MW      0.000   -0.866  D       0.00    0.00
LW      0.00    -0.044  D       0.00    0.00

[ moleculetype ]
;molname    nrexcl
SOL             1

[ atoms ]
; nr    atomtype        resnr   residuename     atom    cgnr    charge
1       OW              1       SOL             OW      1       0.0
2       HW              1       SOL             HW1     1       0.477
3       HW              1       SOL             HW2     1       0.477
4       MW              1       SOL             MW      1       -0.866
5       LW              1       SOL             LP1     1       -0.044
6       LW              1       SOL             LP2     1       -0.044

[ settles ]
; OW    function        doh     dhh
1       1               0.0980  0.15856

[ dummies3 ]
; These set of parameters are for M site which can be easily calculated
using TIP4P calculations from tip4p.itp
; So, it will be described as dummy site 3: r(v)= r(i) + a*(r(i)-r(j)) +
b*(r(i)-r(k))
; const = |OH|/{|OH|*cos(HOH/2)} => Due to vector algebra a=b=const/2.
Remember that OM is in the same direction of OH bonds.
; Remember this site is in the same plane of OH bonds; so, its function 1
;
; site  from            function        a               b
4       1  2  3         1               0.199642536     0.199642536

; Now we define the position of L sites which can be obtained from
tip5p.itp
; So, it will be described as dummy site 3out: r(v) = r(i) + a*(r(i)-r(j))
+
b*(r(i)-r(k)) + c*(r(ij)Xr(ik))
; const1 = {|OL|*cos(LOL/2)}/{|OH|*cos(HOH/2)} => Due to vector algebra
|a|=|b|=const/2. since the lone pairs are in opposite direction of OH
bonds,
a minus sign is added. This part is similar to M site.
; const2 = {|OL|*sin(LOL/2)}/{|OH|*|OH|*sin(HOH)} => The denominator is
the
magnitude of vector product of OH bonds.
; This sites are tetrahedral sites; so, its function 4
;
; site  from            function        a               b               c
5       1  2  3         4               -0.437172388    -0.437172388
8.022961206
6       1  2  3         4               -0.437172388    -0.437172388
-8.022961206

[ exclusions ]
1       2       3       4       5       6
2       1       3       4       5       6
3       1       2       4       5       6
4       1       2       3       5       6
5       1       2       3       4       6
6       1       2       3       4       5


And here is the mdp file which I used for the simulation run:
cpp              = cpp
include          = -I../top
define           =

; Run control

integrator       = md
dt               = 0.001           ;1 fs
nsteps           = 1000000         ;10 ns
comm_mode        = linear
nstcomm          = 1

;Output control

nstxout          = 5000
nstlog           = 5000
nstenergy        = 5000
nstxtcout        = 1000
xtc_grps         =
energygrps       =

; Neighbour Searching

nstlist          = 10
ns_type          = grid
rlist            = 0.9

; Electrostatistics

coulombtype      = PME
rcoulomb         = 0.9
epsilon_r        = 1

; Vdw

vdwtype          = cut-off
rvdw             = 1.2
DispCorr         = EnerPres

;Ewald

fourierspacing  = 0.12
pme_order       = 4
ewald_rtol      = 1e-6
optimize_fft    = yes

; Temperature coupling

tcoupl           = Berendsen
tc-grps          = System
tau_t            = 0.1
ref_t            = 300

; Pressure Coupling

Pcoupl           = Berendsen
Pcoupltype       = isotropic
tau_p            = 1.0
compressibility  = 5.5e-5
ref_p            = 1.0
gen_vel          = yes
The expected Potential energy is supposed to be around -41.5kJ/mol while
my
potential is around -22.2kJ/mol. I calculated the energies by g_energy
command.


And do yo have the right density?

Payman

-----Original Message-----
From: gmx-users-boun...@gromacs.org [mailto:gmx-users-boun...@gromacs.org]
On Behalf Of David van der Spoel
Sent: June 8, 2009 11:13 AM
To: Discussion list for GROMACS users
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Energies in simulation

Payman Pirzadeh wrote:
To the best of my knowledge no, but how can I check that?

A. read the original paper: is your topology correct? Are the simulation parameters the same?

B. post the itp file here and mdp file and specify energy and expected energy. How about energy units?

-----Original Message-----
From: gmx-users-boun...@gromacs.org
[mailto:gmx-users-boun...@gromacs.org]
On Behalf Of David van der Spoel
Sent: June 8, 2009 11:06 AM
To: Discussion list for GROMACS users
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Energies in simulation

Payman Pirzadeh wrote:
Hi,

I am using my own water model which I developed its .itp file. When simulation is done after 1ns and energy is kinetic and potential energies are analyzed, the kinetic value is almost OK, but the potential

energy is almost half of the value reported in literature and another MD

code that I am currently using. I double-checked the parameters I gave in the .itp with TIP4P and TIP5P to make sure everything is correct in format and unit. But I can not figure out the problem. Any ideas?

Is there any self-energy involved (i.e. a monomer energy that yo have to subtract)?
Payman

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list    gmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.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 gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php





--
David.
________________________________________________________________________
David van der Spoel, PhD, Professor of Biology
Dept. of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University.
Husargatan 3, Box 596,          75124 Uppsala, Sweden
phone:  46 18 471 4205          fax: 46 18 511 755
sp...@xray.bmc.uu.se    sp...@gromacs.org   http://folding.bmc.uu.se
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list    gmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.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 gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php

Reply via email to