[gmx-users] Issues with energy when running in the microcanonical ensemble
C.M.Sampson
cms1g11 at soton.ac.uk
Wed Jun 12 11:26:53 CEST 2013
Dear all,
I'm using Gromacs 4.5.5 with the amber ff99SB forcefield to run NVE
simulations on ethane in 725 TIP3P water molecules. I used antechamber
to parametrise my ethane.
I have 2 issues;
Firstly the energy conservation of my simulations seems to get worse as
I lower my timestep, here is an example .mdp file that I'm using:
integrator = md-vv
gen_vel = no
nsteps = 1000000
dt = 0.001
nstlist = 10
rlist = 1.3
coulombtype = pme
rcoulomb = 1.0
vdw-type = Shift
rvdw = 1.0
tcoupl = no
pcoupl = no
nstenergy = 100
I found a link describing that it could be an issue with the precision
and that Gromacs can be installed with double precision:
http://www.gromacs.org/Documentation/Terminology/Conserving_Energy
but is this the only way to ensure energy conservation?
My second issue is with the calculation of the kinetic energy, I have
2183 atoms in my simulation box which means the kinetic energy should be
(roughly)
0.5 * 3*2183-3(degrees of freedom) * 0.001987204118(kB) * 300(T) *
4.184(conversion from kcal/mol to kJ/mol) = 8163.97
however, when I look in my simulation the kinetic energy Gromacs outputs
is 5498.20
Step Time Lambda
0 0.00000 0.00000
Energies (kJ/mol)
Bond Angle Ryckaert-Bell. LJ-14 Coulomb-14
5.95743e+00 1.96046e+01 4.71247e-01 5.73520e-01 3.92661e+00
LJ (SR) Coulomb (SR) Coul. recip. Potential Kinetic En.
5.12842e+03 -3.20604e+04 -2.67111e+03 -2.95726e+04 5.49820e+03
Total Energy Temperature Pressure (bar)
-2.40744e+04 3.02575e+02 -1.82251e+03
By running in NVE I'm not using a thermostat and can't find any reason
in the manual to scale the kinetic energy. Is there an a reason I'm
missing as to why my kinetic energy seems lower than it should be?
Best Wishes
Chris
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users
mailing list