REBO forcefield for a system containing C, H, O atoms

Dear LAMMPS users,

Does anyone have a REBO forcefield or another forcefield for a system containing C, H, and O atoms that can share with LAMMPS users?

I know that that it has been previously asked in LAMMPS mailing list couple of few times about the existence of such a force field. By searching in the mailing list, I realized that it is a very daunting task to develop such a forcefield applicable in LAMMPS for a person like me who has very little experience with forcefield development. Even if the parameters for such a force field maybe available in the literature, it seems that it is not that much straightforward to implement them.

I have tried to used OPLS-AA force field parameters for dihedral angles in addition to utilization of AMBER force field parameters for bond stretching and angle bending energy description. This strategy works for my system, when I don’t assign partial charges to some atoms in my system. But, when I assign charges to some groups of atoms in my system, I get the following error:

ERROR on proc 1: Out of range atoms - cannot compute PPPM (…/pppm.cpp:1906)

My system contains water molecules as well modeled with SPC/E model. I can provide more information about my simulation, if it is needed.

The best,

Farshad

Dear LAMMPS users,

Does anyone have a REBO forcefield or another forcefield for a system
containing C, H, and O atoms that can share with LAMMPS users?

I know that that it has been previously asked in LAMMPS mailing list couple
of few times about the existence of such a force field. By searching in the
mailing list, I realized that it is a very daunting task to develop such a
forcefield applicable in LAMMPS for a person like me who has very little
experience with forcefield development. Even if the parameters for such a
force field maybe available in the literature, it seems that it is not that
much straightforward to implement them.

since people have asked and nobody has responded, it is safe to assume
that either a) it doesn't exist or b) it exists, but the author
doesn't want to share it publicly or c) it exists, but the author
doesn't follow the mailing list. take your pick. whether it exists at
all, would be most likely revealed by searching the published
literature.

I have tried to used OPLS-AA force field parameters for dihedral angles in
addition to utilization of AMBER force field parameters for bond stretching
and angle bending energy description. This strategy works for my system,
when I don’t assign partial charges to some atoms in my system. But, when I
assign charges to some groups of atoms in my system, I get the following
error:

ERROR on proc 1: Out of range atoms - cannot compute PPPM (../pppm.cpp:1906)

My system contains water molecules as well modeled with SPC/E model. I can
provide more information about my simulation, if it is needed.

as has been explained many, many times on this very mailing list
already. this error message indicates that there is a problem with
your simulation parameters and/or geometry. adding charges is a
massive modification of the potential hypersurface, so strong forces
are likely to happen and that in turn is likely going to mess up your
system. have you tried running a minimization?

axel.

ReaxFF has parameter sets for C/H/O and it contains charges that seem to be your interest. Please check out pair_style reax/c.

Ray

Hi,
It is Susan B. Sinnott’s group who introduced a version of REBO potential for CHO (see: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16 (2004) 7261–7275). If I am correct, this parameterization was afterwards developed into first version of COMB potential (but not 100% sure), so if you want to use “REBO” you should move to COMB. But try to contact prof. Sinnott fro details.

Regards,
Bartlomiej

Sorry Bartlomiej, but this is not correct. COMB and REBO are two different potentials, and the first generation COMB does not have parameters for C and H either. The third generation COMB (pair_style comb3) also differs from REBO, not just in parameters but also in formalism.

Ray

Ray,

Thank you for your suggestion.

The last time I used ReaxFF in my simulations was four years ago that was kind of discouraging due its high cost of computation.

However, I will test reax/c to see if the problem is with structure or not.

The best,

Farshad

Dear Alex,

Regarding your first part of you response, the question I brought up in my last email had been asked a long time ago by others. Some suggestions were provided at that time. However, I thought that things have been changed and there is possibility that if I ask this question again, LAMMPS users and even LAMMPS developers would like to contribute their version of REBO potential for C/H/O system. After all, there is a good numbers of systems which contain C, H, and O atoms and it would be very beneficial if a forcefield for this kind of system become available to LAMMPS community.

Regarding the second part of your suggestion, I did minimize my system. After the minimization, the system was equilibrated using NPT time integrator. I received the following error in the first initial steps of equilibration.

ERROR on proc 0: Non-numeric box dimensions - simulation unstable (…/pppm.cpp:1882)

I would like to find a clue as to what is wrong with either my simulation or atomic structure.

Info about the log file and input file are given at the end of my email.

Thanks for your consideration,

Farshad

Dear Alex,

Regarding your first part of you response, the question I brought up in my
last email had been asked a long time ago by others. Some suggestions were
provided at that time. However, I thought that things have been changed and
there is possibility that if I ask this question again, LAMMPS users and
even LAMMPS developers would like to contribute their version of REBO
potential for C/H/O system. After all, there is a good numbers of systems
which contain C, H, and O atoms and it would be very beneficial if a
forcefield for this kind of system become available to LAMMPS community.

this kind of reasoning always makes me angry, because it is at its
core dishonest and disrespectful. while there may be others that would
benefit, it is primarily *you* that would benefit the most. ...and
massively so, because if it wasn't so difficult to you, you would have
done it already, right? how do you know, it is not difficult and a lot
of effort for *anybody*?

thus with this kind of statement you a) claim that what is primarily
your personal benefit is a large benefit for the community (and the
LAMMPS community is larger and more diverse than what you seem to
think, so the benefit is definitely only for a subset of the LAMMPS
community) and b) imply that it is not worth spending that much of
your own time to learn and figure out how to do this kind of work
yourself. now, i grant you that in this particular case, the effort is
objectively large for somebody with little experience, but that
doesn't completely compensate the implied disrespect of the work of
others.

so before asking the community to work for *your* benefit, you should
first ask yourself what can *you* contribute that is of equal or
greater value to the community. does this statement remind you of
something? well, that is not a coincidence. :wink:

Regarding the second part of your suggestion, I did minimize my system.
After the minimization, the system was equilibrated using NPT time
integrator. I received the following error in the first initial steps of
equilibration.

ERROR on proc 0: Non-numeric box dimensions - simulation unstable
(../pppm.cpp:1882)

I would like to find a clue as to what is wrong with either my simulation or
atomic structure.

impossible to say from remote, but it looks highly suspicious. could
be a problem with parameters or the topology or the geometry or a
combination of those. it definitely looks like something somewhere
between FUBAR and SNAFU is happening between minimization step 150 and
200.
have you visualized what is going on? that might provide a hint.

also, you seem to have a complex system with lots of components. why
not start with something simpler and check that out by itself and then
gradually make it more complex again until you see which component is
giving you troubles.

axel.

Axel,

By no means I wanted to show disrespect to anyone, especially you and people I addressed in my email. It is very nice of you and other active people in LAMMPS community who spend time and read emails and try to provide constructive comments about our questions. Maybe the word “beneficial” was interpreted badly. It’s better not to continue to discuss about this issue, because it seems that my intention has been communicated not in the way I meant.

I’ll keep checking my system and try different strategies including the ones you suggested to find out where is the problem.

The best,

Farshad