RE: AMBER: ntt=1 or ntt= 3?

From: Hu, Shaowen \(JSC-SK\)[USRA] <"Hu,>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:40:09 -0500

Thanks Carlos. Could you give a range of gamma_ln? I can not find any
example at hand. As I understand, short gamma_ln means tight coupling,


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Carlos Simmerling
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: AMBER: ntt=1 or ntt= 3?

yes it is, make sure you have applied all of the bugfixes.

On 3/22/07, Hu, Shaowen (JSC-SK)[USRA] <> wrote:
> Hi Dr. Case,
> Is this possible to use ntt=3 for simulation annealing? It seems that
> all people use ntt=1 for SA.
> Thanks,
> Shaowen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of David A. Case
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:30 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: AMBER: ntt=1 or ntt= 3?
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007, Therese Malliavin wrote:
> >
> > So, I decided to switch from ntt=1 to ntt=3 for running an usual MD
> > simulation in the NTP ensemble (without QMMM). Before that, I was
> > heating the system using ntt=1 and a constant volume ensemble.
> >
> > But, the equilibration simulation has a problem with the water
> > density
> > which is about 0.84 in place of slightly larger than 1.
> I think we need more information. I've equilibrated many systems
> using
> ntt=3 and gotten correct densities. So, I don't think there is
> anything intrinsically wrong with that option. You could equilibrate
> with ntt=1, getting a proper density, then continue with ntt=3, and
> the temperature and density should continue to be appropriate.
> > mean pressure calculated over
> > 20 ps is about -100 atm, whereas I always found it around 0 in the
> > past when I was using ntt=1).
> This part sounds correct: if the density is too low, the pressure
> should be negative (saying that the system wants to contract). But
> it's not clear why the system doesn't contract, leading to a higher
> density. What value of taup and ntp are you using? How long was the
> Did you "start over"
> in equilibration, or continue an existing run where ntt=1 had been
> Prof. Duan is correct in saying that ntt=1 with a value of tautp of 1
> or
> 2 doesn't show obvious problems (for explicit solvent simulations).
> I'm not sure what he means by saying "for some reason, tautp=0.2
> remained on the manual." (I don't see that myself: the default value
> is 1.0). The use of
> ntt=1 can become problematic for implicit solvent simulations, where
> there are relatively few degrees of freedom. And, the Berendsen
> algorithm is fragile, and can lead to a non-uniform distribution of
> temperature inside a simulation even when the overall temperature
> looks OK.
> On the other hand, Langevin (ntt=3) simulations can also exhibit funny

> behavior, especially if the same random number seed is used for
> repeated simulations. This problem has a long history, but a good
> recent overview is
> here:
> %A B.P. Uberuaga
> %A M. Anghel
> %A A.F. Voter
> %T Synchronization of trajectories in canonical molecular-dynamics
> simulations: Observation, explanation, and exploitation %J J. Chem.
> Phys.
> %V 120
> %P 6363-6374
> %D 2004
> A recommendation is that you should explicitly set the random number
> seed
> ("ig") to new values at each restart of an ntt=3 simulation.
> The bottom line is that all methods of constant T simulation have
> idiosyncracies (including Nose-Hoover thermostats, not discussed
> here), and one needs to take care. But the massive problems reported
> by Therese probably have some other origin.
> ...dac
> -----------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to
Received on Sun Mar 25 2007 - 06:07:31 PDT
Custom Search