[gmx-users] Dubious results with NPT

[Dr. Vitaly Chaban]

in that case the average is reasonable, but you should state in the
manuscript that all the reported results correspond to 5.15 bar.


Dr. Vitaly V. Chaban


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:42 AM, sujithkakkat . <sujithks58 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   In fact the average pressure 5.15 bar was obtained  for the case where the
> reference pressure was 5 bar.  I had mentioned it in one of the previous
> mails. But still the average value is not that good.
>
>>I had run an earlier simulation with the same parameters for a pure water
>> system for 5ns and reference pressure 5bar, and things worked fine there
>> with the average pressure at 5.15bar.
>
>
> Sujith.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Dr. Vitaly Chaban <vvchaban at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> your average pressure is the pressure you should report in the
>> publication. if you got 5 bars instead of 1 bar, you should write
>>
>> "I simulated the system at 5 bars"
>>
>>
>> Dr. Vitaly V. Chaban
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:01 AM, sujithkakkat . <sujithks58 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:37 AM, sujithkakkat . <sujithks58 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >>   Thank you both for  the comments. I am using gromos96 forcefield . I
>> >> read
>> >> a little bit  and as you said the nonbonded cutoff has to be higher.
>> >> The tau_p=5ps was chosen , since the manual mentions that the value has
>> >> to
>> >> be raised by 4-5 times on going from berendsen to parrinello-rahman
>> >> barostat, though I did not completely follow the reasons behind it. I
>> >> will
>> >> try with lower values.
>> >>
>> >>    I had run an earlier simulation with the same parameters for a pure
>> >> water
>> >> system for 5ns and reference pressure 5bar, and things worked fine
>> >> there
>> >> with the average pressure at 5.15bar.
>> >
>> >
>> > No, this average pressure is not fine.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  Why isn't it fine? I admit it is not very good. I guess due to huge
>> > fluctuations the average pressure is tend to vary a bit to either side
>> > of
>> > the reference value, unless I continue the equilibration for a very long
>> > time. Also the average was calculated with g_energy, which I guess
>> > considered the entire simulation, where the first few time steps, when
>> > the
>> > system is away from equilibrium,  would have poor pressure values with
>> > respect to reference , which would reflect in the average pressure
>> > calculated.
>> > Also using g_analyze to calculate average pressure between different
>> > times
>> > during the simulation did not give the same value.  So I am not sure if
>> > I
>> > should aim at an average pressure which is equal to the reference
>> > pressure.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Sujith.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Justin Lemkul <jalemkul at vt.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2/23/14, 11:37 PM, sujithkakkat . wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello,
>> >>>
>> >>>    Thank you both for  the comments. I am using gromos96 forcefield .
>> >>> I
>> >>> read
>> >>> a little bit  and as you said the nonbonded cutoff has to be higher.
>> >>> The tau_p=5ps was chosen , since the manual mentions that the value
>> >>> has
>> >>> to
>> >>> be raised by 4-5 times on going from berendsen to parrinello-rahman
>> >>> barostat, though I did not completely follow the reasons behind it. I
>> >>> will
>> >>> try with lower values.
>> >>>
>> >>>     I had run an earlier simulation with the same parameters for a
>> >>> pure
>> >>> water system for 5ns and reference pressure 5bar, and things worked
>> >>> fine
>> >>> there with the average pressure at 5.15bar. I guess the sigma  for the
>> >>> case
>> >>> of water was low and therefore the small cut-off of 0.8nm did not
>> >>> matter.
>> >>> However the case of cyclohexane alone remains to be tried.
>> >>>
>> >>> I guess Dr Vitaly was saying about using a switch/shift function.
>> >>> I will try the simulation with the new settings and see.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The Gromos force fields were parametrized with a plain cutoff for van
>> >> der
>> >> Waals.  They do not require switching or shifting.  It's true that
>> >> plain
>> >> cutoffs are a bit harsh, but switching and shifting have their own
>> >> issues,
>> >> and one should always stick to the parametrization methods unless there
>> >> is
>> >> demonstrable evidence that the new method is better.  I have never
>> >> known
>> >> Gromos96 force fields to need anything other than plain cutoff for van
>> >> der
>> >> Waals to function as expected.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Justin
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ==================================================
>> >>
>> >> Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
>> >> Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA Postdoctoral Fellow
>> >>
>> >> Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
>> >> School of Pharmacy
>> >> Health Sciences Facility II, Room 601
>> >> University of Maryland, Baltimore
>> >> 20 Penn St.
>> >> Baltimore, MD 21201
>> >>
>> >> jalemkul at outerbanks.umaryland.edu | (410) 706-7441
>> >> http://mackerell.umaryland.edu/~jalemkul
>> >>
>> >> ==================================================
>> >> --
>> >> Gromacs Users mailing list
>> >>
>> >> * Please search the archive at
>> >> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
>> >> posting!
>> >>
>> >> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>> >>
>> >> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
>> >> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or
>> >> send
>> >> a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Gromacs Users mailing list
>>
>> * Please search the archive at
>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting!
>>
>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>>
>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
>> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send
>> a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
>
>