On 03/02/10 15:55, sulatha M. S wrote:
Dear gromas users,
I am new to gromacs and trying to run polyacrylate MD simulation. I
obtained an itp file using PRODRG (gromos 96 force-field parameters).
When I compare with the same forcefield parameters in the gromacs/top
directory, they are far too off. For eg.
[ bonds ]
; ai aj fu c0, c1, ...
2 1 2 0.125 13400000.0 0.125 13400000.0 ; CAC OAD
2 3 2 0.125 13400000.0 0.125 13400000.0 ; CAC OAE
4 2 2 0.153 7150000.0 0.153 7150000.0 ; CAB CAC
4 5 2 0.153 7150000.0 0.153 7150000.0 ; CAB CAA
4 6 2 0.153 7150000.0 0.153 7150000.0 ; CAB CAG
7 6 2 0.153 7150000.0 0.153 7150000.0 ; CAH CAG
7 8 2 0.153 7150000.0 0.153 7150000.0 ; CAH CAI
As I understand, the function type should be 1 and c1 values should
correspond to the force constant for bond stretching. But here it
corresponds to the pair wise non bond parameters as listed in the
gromacs/top force-field file. Similarly,
The bonded function type can have a whole range of values. See table in
section 5.7.1 of the manual. That and the parameters, and the form of
the target forcefield have to be considered as a whole in judging
acceptability.
It's quite conceivable that the same numerical values are used in a
bonded interaction (in [bonds] above) and forming the parameters in
non-bonded interaction (in the [atomtypes] in the ffG96XXXbon.itp file)
for in this case both pairs can represent quantities whose dimensions
are length and energy respectively.
[ pairs ]
; ai aj fu c0, c1, ...
1 5 1 ; OAD CAA
1 6 1 ; OAD CAG
2 7 1 ; CAC CAH
3 5 1 ; OAE CAA
3 6 1 ; OAE CAG
4 8 1 ; CAB CAI
4 11 1 ; CAB CAL
5 7 1 ; CAA CAH
there are no pair terms listed here in the pairs section.
Some forcefields generate these solely from the [atomtype] data.
[ angles ]
; ai aj ak fu c0, c1, ...
1 2 3 2 126.0 770.0 126.0 770.0 ; OAD CAC OAE
1 2 4 2 117.0 635.0 117.0 635.0 ; OAD CAC CAB
3 2 4 2 117.0 635.0 117.0 635.0 ; OAE CAC CAB
2 4 5 2 109.5 520.0 109.5 520.0 ; CAC CAB CAA
2 4 6 2 109.5 520.0 109.5 520.0 ; CAC CAB CAG
5 4 6 2 109.5 520.0 109.5 520.0 ; CAA CAB CAG
4 6 7 2 109.5 520.0 109.5 520.0 ; CAB CAG CAH
For angles also the fu term is 2 instead of 1, although the angle and
the force constant parameters are correct.
Similar errors are there in the dihedrals section also.
This means I need to almost fully edit the itp file I got from PRODRG to
proceed further. Thank you in advance for any help and please clarify
whether the itp file from PRODRG is unreliable even while using GROMOS96
force field ?
There's no evidence of any error here. You should satisfy yourself from
the contents of chapter 5 and the correct form of the GROMOS energy
function that PRODRG is doing what you think it should. It looks to me
like PRODRG is fine and you don't yet understand the form of what it
should be producing. I suggest that you should do that learning.
Whether the numerical values will be sensible for MD simulations (as
distinct from being expressed in a suitable form) is quite another question.
Mark
--
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
