[gmx-users] Energy conservation in collision

Berk Hess gmx3 at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 27 12:23:44 CEST 2007

>From: Janne Hirvi <janne.hirvi at joensuu.fi>
>Reply-To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>To: gmx-users at gromacs.org
>Subject: [gmx-users] Energy conservation in collision
>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:36:29 +0300
>Hello gmx-users!
>I am still struggling with the energy conservation in the system where a 
>droplet (consisting of rigid molecules) collides with a frozen structured
>surface. The total energy is well conserved at the beginning of NVE 
>when the droplet is approaching the surface and once again when the droplet 
>stabilized on the surface, but the drift or fluctuation in the total energy 
>observed between these extremes.
>The total energy of the system (~300 000kJ/mol) decreases slightly 
>at the collision and on non-wetting surfaces (water droplet wont intrude to 
>pores of the surface) part of the energy reverts quickly causing a sharp 
>in the energy curve. This could indicate an integration error at the 
>due to the large time step, but equal behavior is observed with the time 
>of 2.0fs and 0.5fs.
>On the wetting surfaces (water droplet intrude to the pores of the surface) 
>center of mass motion of the droplet come to a stop at the collision as in 
>case of non-wetting surface and sharp decrease in the total energy is 
>However, now none of this energy is reverted and the total energy stabilize 
>this value until the water molecules starts to intrude to the pores of the
>surface. The total energy decrease slowly in conjuction with the slow 
>of the height of the center of mass of the water droplet until the bottom 
>the pores is reached. After the bottom of the pores is reached energy will
>stabilize to the corresponding value which is about 200-300kJ/mol lower 
>than at
>the beginning.
>Decreasing the time step from 2.0fs to 0.5fs have no influence for the 
>conservation and somehow the problem seems to be connected to water-surface
>interactions: on the wetting surfaces (more water-surface interactions) a 
>is observed instead of a sharp peak of non-wetting surfaces (less 
>interactions). Any ideas how I could achieve complete energy conservation?
>Thanks for your time and help,

What kind of interactions are you using?
Plain cut-off for Coulomb and LJ will give bad energy conservation.
For your system you probably want to use shifted LJ and Coulomb potentials.


Play online games with your friends with Messenger 

More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list