LAMMPS WWW Site - LAMMPS Documentation - LAMMPS Mailing List Archives
Re: [lammps-users] lj parameters

# Re: [lammps-users] lj parameters

 From: Hossein Geraili Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:32:39 +0430

Dear Lammps users,
I found out that I should convert the r min in charmm22 force field which I obtained from article, but there is still a concern why the formula form in the article that I use have this difference:
{eps ij [(rmin ij/r ij)^12 -(rmin ij/r ij)^6] + q i q j/r ij=== this formula is in the article.
the correct formula for rmin at CHARMM22 force field is( a 2 is missing):
eps ij [(rmin ij/r ij)^12 - 2*(rmin ij/r ij)^6].

So I am not sure that I should use this conversion:

1-rmin ij = (2)^1/6 *sig. ij

or because there is no two beside the second term, I should use another conversion(what?).

Excuse me for several messages, the previous messages were not clear, and I am sorry for that.

Thanks

Sent with Mailtrack

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Hossein Geraili wrote:
Dear Lammps users,

I am using force field parameters of my molecule from an article which is using this formula for pair interaction potential:
{eps ij [(rmin ij/r ij)^12 -(rmin ij/r ij)^6] + q i q j/r ij}
but I know the correct formula for rmin is( a 2 is missing):
eps ij [(rmin ij/r ij)^12 - 2*(rmin ij/r ij)^6].
anyway, I should use pair_style lj/cut/coul/long for my system, which the VdW part is:
4*eps ij [(sig. ij/r ij)^12 - (sig. ij/r ij)^6].
and I know the relation between sig. and rmin:
rmin ij = (2)^1/6 *sig. ij
I wanted to ask, should I convert these to lammps, like converting rmin  to sig. and considering the changes( like 2, 4) and take them into account at inputting sig. and eps. values? or it is not necessary and lammps would consider rmin as sig.?
excuse me if it is obvious, but I cannot be sure which one is correct.

--
Hosein Geraili Daronkola
Physical Chemistry,
Department of Chemistry,
Sharif University of Technology.
geraili_hosein@...7110...

Sent with Mailtrack

--
Hosein Geraili Daronkola