[gmx-users] [ nonbonded_params ] and opls-aa
gmx3 at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 29 08:38:19 CEST 2005
>From: Paul Rowntree <Paul.Rowntree at USherbrooke.ca>
>Reply-To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>To: gmx-users at gromacs.org
>Subject: [gmx-users] [ nonbonded_params ] and opls-aa
>Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 01:41:59 -0500
>I am trying to add an LJ interaction to an opls-aa ff; my way of extending
>ff is to include a small .itp file into the topology file, rather than
>modifying the distribution ff files. In this file I define my types etc,
>the LJ parameters.
>In the distribution ffoplsaa.itp file, the default combintaion rule is mode
>requiring sigma and epsilon values. The printd manual indicates that this
>convention will always be applied to the [nonbonded_params] inforamtion.
>However, when I do a gmxdump of the resulting .tpr file, I find a new
>type in the LJ list that has exactly the same numerical values as my sigma
>epsilon pair, but the listing format implies they are being interpreted as
>and C12 values, which would be MUCH more repulsive than intended. The
>results support this interpretation, and the run is clearly not behaving
>It seems as if grompp has ignored the combination rule setting in the [
>] parameter block.
>So the question is : should I be able to include values in sigma epsilon
>when I extend the opls-aa force field ? I can recalculate the C6 and C12
>course, but it takes away from the pure opls 'look and feel' of the
This problem has already appeared (I think more than once) this month on the
I have fixed it in CVS and for the next release.
For the moment you will have to enter C6 and C12.
Hotmail en Messenger on the move
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users