Doubts related to energy trends with XC functionals and cutoffs
SRKC Sharma Yamijala
sharma... at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 16:01:01 UTC 2014
Dear CP2K users and developers,
I am trying to calculate the energy difference between Au20 clusters
(tetrahedral and planar geometries i.e. Et - Ep) on a graphene quantum dot
substrate. After performing the initial tests with both BLYP functional and
PBE functional with 60 Ry Rel_cutoff, I got the below results.
With BLYP functional With PBE functional:
Cutoff (Ry) Et - Ep (eV)
300.000000 0.476312 300.000000 0.836360
350.000000 0.478999 350.000000 0.838100
400.000000 0.482285 400.000000 0.840190
450.000000 0.484214 450.000000 0.840969
500.000000 0.481904 500.000000 0.840789
550.000000 0.485268 550.000000 0.841879
600.000000 0.485097 600.000000 0.842565
650.000000 0.485540 650.000000 0.842448
700.000000 0.485891 700.000000 0.842935
750.000000 0.485847 750.000000 0.842933
800.000000 -1.372659 800.000000 -1.218138
Though it seems, from these results, that 550 Ry is sufficient for
calculating energy differences, I do have a doubt regarding the 800 Ry.
Also, I want to let you know that all these calculations have been
performed with 1 SCF cycle as mentioned in the tutorial and the absolute
energies of each system got converged (with in 0.0001 Ha) only for 700 and
750 Ry.
If possible could you please let me know
(i) whether performing production runs with 550 Ry and 60 Ry for cutoff and
Relcutoff is okay or not.
(ii) Calculations show PBE and BLYP need the same cutoff for a converged
calculation. I have been repeatedly reading that BLYP needs more cutoff to
get better calculations in the forum. Anything wrong or is it a special
case?
(iii) I found that there is no change in the absolute energy (with 0.0001
Ha), for any Rel_cutoff between 40 to 90 Ry (results not shown here). I
have tried with cutoffs 350 Ry and 700 Ry. For both of these cutoffs
absolute energies are not changing with relcutoff. Is it expected?
(iv) Can one expect a ~ 0.4 eV increment in the energy difference just by a
change in the XC functional.
Input file is also attached for clarity.
Thanking you for your support,
Sincerely,
Sharma.
P.S. Sorry for the long mail.
********************************************************
*Chaitanya Sharma,*
*Prof. Pati'*s group,
Chemistry and Physics Materials unit,
JNCASR, BANGLORE,
Lab:: (080-2208) 2581, 2809
https://sites.google.com/site/sharmasrkcyamijala/
*********************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20140924/d7f0240e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: au20_planar_on_bi_layer_6N-GQD.inp
Type: chemical/x-gamess-input
Size: 2156 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20140924/d7f0240e/attachment.inp>
More information about the CP2K-user
mailing list