Virtual_sites

GROMACS version:5.1.40
GROMACS modification: Yes/No
Hi, I was trying to use [virtual_sites_2] to see the halogen bond between MeOH_O and EP1 and EP2 of C-Cl bonds in dichloromethane. But after production run I find the interaction energies between them straight 0. I used small positive charges on EP1 and EP2( +0.003). No error occured otherwise.
I included two virtual sites in Ch2Cl2.itp as:

[ atoms ]

6 EP 1 DCM EP1 1 0.0300 0.0000 ; sigma-hole site on Cl0 (mass 0)
7 EP 1 DCM EP2 1 0.0300 0.0000 ; sigma-hole site on Cl0 (mass 0)

[virtual_sites2]
site atom_i atom_j funct a
6 1 2 1 1.17
7 1 3 1 1.17

plz helpThnx in advance.

How did you obtain the interaction energies between them?

Well I used small positive charges along the C–Cl bonds nearer to Cl atoms as I told as classical sigma holes. My system contained 500 MeOH and 500 CH2Cl2. From energy minimization to NPT equilibriation I used these CH2Cl2 molecules with 2 sigma-holes. Now during my production run, I created two index groups, indexing EP1 and EP2 of CH2Cl2 and O of MeOH. Then I used the command: “energygrps =MeOH_O CH2Cl2_EP1 CH2Cl2_EP2” to get segregated interaction energy values between each two of the 3 index groups. At the end of production run, you can find segregated Coulomb SR, LJ SR etc energy in between the two specific groups like MeOH-O and CH2Cl2-EP1…like that. But in my case I find the interaction energy between EP1 and 2 and O of MeOH totally ZERO!!! Like the EP sites don’t even exist!! Am I doing the indexing wrong? Or is there some other problem? Thnx in advance.

That sounds strange. Are all other pairs terms as you expect or are there more zero?

After you suggested, I searched for all other pairs. And yes all are zero. Only the interaction energies with itself ain’t zero. So I guess the problem is in the energygrps command I’m using or in the indexing? I grouped similar types of atoms under corresponding index groups. I’ve attached an image. And many, many thanks for answering my questions. Big help!!!

I can’t say anything based on just the figure, as the names of the groups don’t match the ones in your post above.