New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added Axilrod-Teller manybody potential #987
Conversation
Hi Sergey - I made several changes/comments in the src and doc (txt) file |
Hi Sergey - I looked at the latest changes for the Axilrod-T-M So I pushed changes to 2 files that I think are correct, pair_atm.cpp The doc file is to explain how to set K with I also changed some things in the code The answers in the log.9Jul18 log files Also, for computational efficiency Another thing you should check is Thanks, |
Can't set status; build succeeded. |
@sjplimp there seems to be a typo in the pair_atm.txt file (looks like it has ":per" instead of ":pre"):
|
Hi Steve, I made some changes to source and documentation:-
Thanks, |
Hi Sergey @sergeylishchuk - thanks for the changes, we're close I think. However I
First, I think that you want to insure the same set of IJK triplets So I think you need to compare rIJ and rIK to the force cutoff used to Second, I assume you want to produce answers that are rotationally Note that if you end up having to check all 3 distances < cutoff, than Steve |
@sergeylishchuk @sjplimp i've updated the branch to the latest master and thus resolved the indicated merge conflicts. in addition, i've integrated to documentation properly into the (refactored) manual and made a few formal corrections. there are still some SJP comments in the code, so i assume, those still need to be worked on. if not, please remove. thanks. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
will update with latest version of Sergey and my files,
should address all the remaining Qs
@sergeylishchuk I just pushed what I think is our final changes, using the latest files you sent me. You should check to see if you agree. @akohlmey you can check if you think it is ready to merge |
i have one more question: there are significant differences in energy and pressure when running the example input with 1 MPI rank vs. using 4 MPI ranks or when i add a small translation via the offset keyword to the lattice command. is this an intrinsic property/problem of the methodology employed or is there perhaps something missing in the example input? |
good catch @akohlmey - the offset case is likely different b/c the velocities are initialized based on atom position. However the 1 vs 4 proc difference, even on step 0, for the as-is in.atm script is troubling. |
@sjplimp File "pair_atm.cpp", line 121: The code works fine for very small pair cutoffs, e.g. Why this might be? |
@sergeylishchuk Take a look at the pair_atm.cpp I just pushed. The issue with your 2 counters is that the 1st inner loop was to jmax-1, not jmax. This logic was correct (b/c the 2nd inner loop did the right thing), but when running in parallel, the order of what atoms appear in each atom's list of neighs will be permuted, depending on how many procs you run on. Thus you could get a different count for my count1 vs count2 (your previous message). Changing the first loop to jmax gives identical counts However the real issue is with count3 = # of triplets computed, |
@sjplimp Thank you for changes and explanation, now it looks working. Originally I used the loop structure from "pair_sw". |
ok @sergeylishchuk - here I think is a clearer explanation of the problem. However it should also be possible to do the half double loop and find |
@sjplimp How about leaving the previous loop structure but replacing rjk test by rik test (attached)? I hope this implements what you suggest. Energy and pressure at different nprocs look fine for me. |
yes, that is a match to the end of my last comment - I cleaned up this version (no counting) |
@akohlmey this style never got added to the |
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:28 PM Stan Moore ***@***.***> wrote:
@akohlmey <https://github.com/akohlmey> this style never got added to the
.gitignore file, can we do this before the stable release?
yup. just been discussing something similar with @sjplimp. as for changes
to the code, there would have to be a serious bug to warrant making changes
there. ...and then the clock would be reset and we need to wait at least
another week. but it looks like we already have some other "cosmetic"
changes pending, i.e. no changes to the code itself.
so we may have one more set of only cosmetic merges next week, step the
version again, and declare that version immediately as stable. i think this
makes sense after all the other cleaning up and making things consistent.
that also gives me an opportunity to update a few more log files (not that
that is crucial, but due to some corrections to the nose-hoover code, there
are some small differences, especially for fix npt).
axel.
… —
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#987 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARp46H_t_OoRg9ILI0wuc-J7RzWUmfGks5u2vmggaJpZM4VCU72>
.
--
Dr. Axel Kohlmeyer akohlmey@gmail.com http://goo.gl/1wk0
College of Science & Technology, Temple University, Philadelphia PA, USA
International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste. Italy.
|
Purpose
Adds Axilrod-Teller-Muto manybody potential (pair_style atm).
Author(s)
Sergey Lishchuk.
Backward Compatibility
Does not break backward compatibility for inputs.
Implementation Notes
The code is adapted from in-house software.
Post Submission Checklist
Please check the fields below as they are completed
Further Information, Files, and Links
Put any additional information here, attach relevant text or image files, and URLs to external sites (e.g. DOIs or webpages)
The code was ported to LAMMPS from the in-house code used in the following publication:
S. V. Lishchuk, "Role of three-body interactions in formation of bulk viscosity in liquid argon", J. Chem. Phys. 136 (2012) 164501.
DOI: 10.1063/1.4704930