[CP2K:5653] Re: Bulk Nickel (and possibly other newbie questions)
Alex
nedo... at gmail.com
Fri Aug 15 23:11:46 CEST 2014
HI Marcella,
Thank you. Potential and basis set aside (I can fix that easily), I was
under the impression that the ABC settings were indeed defining the
supercell, which then, combined with PERIODIC XYZ would give me the desired
setup overall. What are you suggesting instead?
Thanks,
Alex
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcella Iannuzzi <marci... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just few remarks.
>
> For the fcc bulk Ni energy, you need to construct a supercell, since there
> is no k-point sampling,
> and check the convergence of the result with system size.
>
> PADE is probably not an optimal choice for the XC functional, anyway, you
> should use consistent potential and basis set,
> i.e. for the same number of valence electrons (in your input, the PP is
> for 10 v.e. and the BS for 18)
>
> If you don't specify in in the input, no spin polarisation is considered.
>
> Regards
>
> Marcella
>
>
> On Friday, August 15, 2014 10:19:59 PM UTC+2, Alex wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am very new to DFT calculations, let alone CP2k, so some level of
>> idiocy on my part should be expected.
>> As a simple test, I am trying to calculate the binding energy of a Ni
>> atom in a bulk crystal. The relevant portion of the input shown below:
>>
>> ***
>> &GLOBAL
>> PROJECT Ni_inp_test
>> RUN_TYPE ENERGY_FORCE
>> PRINT_LEVEL LOW
>> &END GLOBAL
>> &FORCE_EVAL
>> METHOD Quickstep
>> &SUBSYS
>> &KIND Ni
>> ELEMENT Ni
>> BASIS_SET DZV-GTH-PADE-q18
>> POTENTIAL GTH-PADE-q10
>> &END KIND
>> &CELL
>> A 1.765000 1.765000 0.000000
>> B 0.000000 1.765000 1.765000
>> C 1.765000 0.000000 1.765000
>> PERIODIC XYZ
>> &END CELL
>> &COORD
>> Ni 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000000000
>> &END COORD
>> &END SUBSYS
>> &DFT
>> BASIS_SET_FILE_NAME BASIS_SET
>> POTENTIAL_FILE_NAME GTH_POTENTIALS
>> &QS
>> EPS_DEFAULT 1.0E-10
>> &END QS
>> &MGRID
>> NGRIDS 4
>> CUTOFF 300
>> REL_CUTOFF 60
>> &END MGRID
>> &XC
>> &XC_FUNCTIONAL PADE
>> &END XC_FUNCTIONAL
>> &END XC
>> &SCF
>> SCF_GUESS ATOMIC
>> EPS_SCF 1.0E-7
>> MAX_SCF 300
>> ADDED_MOS 10
>> &DIAGONALIZATION ON
>> ALGORITHM STANDARD
>> &END DIAGONALIZATION
>> &MIXING T
>> METHOD BROYDEN_MIXING
>> ALPHA 0.4
>> NBROYDEN 8
>> &END MIXING
>> &SMEAR ON
>> METHOD FERMI_DIRAC
>> ELECTRONIC_TEMPERATURE [K] 300
>> &END SMEAR
>> &END SCF
>> &END DFT
>> &PRINT
>> &FORCES ON
>> &END FORCES
>> &END PRINT
>> &END FORCE_EVAL
>>
>> ***
>>
>> This yields a total energy of E1=-35.155 a.u. after convergence.
>>
>> Then I decided to calculate the "vacuum" energy of an isolated atom,
>> input below:
>>
>> &GLOBAL
>> PROJECT Ni_inp_test
>> RUN_TYPE ENERGY_FORCE
>> PRINT_LEVEL LOW
>> &END GLOBAL
>> &FORCE_EVAL
>> METHOD Quickstep
>> &SUBSYS
>> &KIND Ni
>> ELEMENT Ni
>> BASIS_SET DZV-GTH-PADE-q18
>> POTENTIAL GTH-PADE-q10
>> &END KIND
>> &CELL
>> A 30.00000 0.000000 0.000000
>> B 0.000000 30.00000 0.000000
>> C 0.000000 0.000000 30.00000
>> &END CELL
>> &COORD
>> Ni 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000000000
>> &END COORD
>> &END SUBSYS
>> &DFT
>> BASIS_SET_FILE_NAME BASIS_SET
>> POTENTIAL_FILE_NAME GTH_POTENTIALS
>> &QS
>> EPS_DEFAULT 1.0E-10
>> &END QS
>> &MGRID
>> NGRIDS 4
>> CUTOFF 300
>> REL_CUTOFF 60
>> &END MGRID
>> &XC
>> &XC_FUNCTIONAL PADE
>> &END XC_FUNCTIONAL
>> &END XC
>> &SCF
>> SCF_GUESS ATOMIC
>> EPS_SCF 1.0E-7
>> MAX_SCF 300
>> ADDED_MOS 10
>> &DIAGONALIZATION ON
>> ALGORITHM STANDARD
>> &END DIAGONALIZATION
>> &MIXING T
>> METHOD BROYDEN_MIXING
>> ALPHA 0.4
>> NBROYDEN 8
>> &END MIXING
>> &SMEAR ON
>> METHOD FERMI_DIRAC
>> ELECTRONIC_TEMPERATURE [K] 300
>> &END SMEAR
>> &END SCF
>> &END DFT
>> &PRINT
>> &FORCES ON
>> &END FORCES
>> &END PRINT
>> &END FORCE_EVAL
>>
>> ***
>>
>> This also converges and yields a total energy E2=-34.555 a.u.
>>
>>
>> Hence, my questions:
>>
>> 1. Is this even the correct way of calculating what I want, including the
>> energy calculations, XC functional, and basis?
>> 2. Should the spin properties be explicitly set in the input? There are
>> none now.
>> 3. Am I setting up the FCC lattice correctly (first input file)? My
>> translation vectors are set by the ABC values, but I have no idea whether
>> this is right.
>> 4. If the first simulation yields the total energy of the system and the
>> FCC lattice implies 12 nearest neighbors, then removing the center would
>> change the total energy by (E1-E2)/6, which isn't the experimental -4.4 eV.
>> Am I completely off track here? :)
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "cp2k" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/cp2k/llUH48_Y3vY/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> cp2k+uns... at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20140815/b23fc307/attachment.html>
More information about the CP2K-user
mailing list