[gmx-users] rvdw and DispCorr

Bernhard Knapp bernhard.knapp at meduniwien.ac.at
Fri May 11 10:23:50 CEST 2012

Dear gromacs users

In a recent paper I found the following protocol of a gromacs simulation:

"All simulations were performed with the GROMACS 4.0 [12] compiled in single-precision mode at a constant temperature of 277 K in a periodic box with an edge length of approximately 8.2 nm and the default GROMOS-96 43A1 forcefield [22]. The simulation systems each contained approximately 16,500 Simple Point Charge (SPC) water molecules [23]. Short-range interactions were evaluated using a neighbor list of 1.0 nm updated at every 10 steps. Van der Waals interactions used a cutoff with a smoothing 
function such that the interactions slowly decayed to zero between 0.75 nm and 0.90 nm. A long-range analytical dispersion correction was applied to the energy and pressure to account for the truncation of the Lennard-Jones interactions [24]. Electrostatic interactions were evaluated using the particle mesh Ewald (PME) [25] with a real space cutoff of 1.0 nm, a spline order of 6, a Fourier spacing of 0.1 m, and relative tolerance between long and short range energies of . All bonds to hydrogen 
were constrained with LINCS [26] with an order of 12, and a time step of 2 fs was used for dynamics."

In the gromacs manual 4.5.4, page 104 it says: "The GROMOS-96 force field was parameterized with a Lennard-Jones cut-off of 1.4 nm, so be sure to use a Lennard-Jones cut-off (rvdw) of at least 1.4".

Is it a good idea to set "DispCorr" to "EnerPres" and reduce the rvdw so dramatically (almost the half value)?

And a second question: Is there a study on the percentage of information getting lost when reducing the rvdw with and without dispcorr (e.g. to 1.2, 1.0, etc) if the forcefield was parameterized with 1.4?


More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list