[CP2K:7065] Re: DFT-D3 parameters for PBEsol
161brun... at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 18:27:02 CEST 2015
thanks for the clarification, this confirms what I thought. I am fairly
familiar with the D3 method as far as more conventional quantum chemistry
packages are concerned, so I wanted to make sure that I am also doing the
right thing in CP2K.
Your comment on the basis set dependence is interesting, something that I
must admit I wasn't aware of. I will look into this. Thanks for pointing
this out, very helpful.
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 6:14:53 PM UTC+1, S Ling wrote:
> Yes, the dftd3.dat file is the same, and you can set the D3_SCALING
> parameters manually in the input. Please use the correct scaling parameters
> either corresponding to zero damping or to BJ-damping. Please note these
> parameters listed on the D3 webpage are for calculations using very large
> basis sets in which case the contribution from basis set superposition
> errors (BSSEs) can be neglected. If you look at the Supporting Information
> of the original paper on the D3 method, the authors have provided
> additional scaling parameters for calculations using moderate basis sets
> which are more likely to be affected by BSSE. You may try both set of
> scaling parameters and see which gives better agreement in comparison with
> experiment for your particular system.
> On 16 October 2015 at 12:46, Tobias Kraemer <161br... at gmail.com
>> Hello Juerg.
>> as far as the dftd3.dat file is concerned, this one is left unchanged I
>> assume? The parameters can then easily be set with the D3_SCALING keyword.
>> Also thanks for the clarification with regards to the choice of
>> basis/potential. This certainly is helpful to know.
>> On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 10:31:39 AM UTC+1, Tobias Kraemer wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I am doing a few test calculations with the PBEsol functional, and it
>>> appears that D3 parameters are not implemented for this functional (I am
>>> using version 2.7).
>>> I guess it might be an option to use the parameters from PBE, but I am
>>> not convinced this is a good idea. On a similar note, I am wondering about
>>> the specification
>>> of the potentials in this case as well, since I don't find any for
>>> PBEsol. I have used the specific potentials for PBE, assuming that this
>>> might be a valid approximation.
>>> The presence of Rhodium in my system seems to limit the choice of
>>> functional to PBE (which I am currently using), PADE and BLYP. So, more
>>> generally I am asking
>>> the question if there is a way to increase the selection. How dangerous
>>> is it to mix potentials and functionals. Perhaps using PBE with PBEsol is
>>> an option, the combination of BLYP with B3LYP has been suggested somewhere
>>> on this forum if I am not mistaken.
>>> This is something I have been wondering about for a while, since I would
>>> like to explore a few more functionals, but I seem to be somewhat limited
>>> in my choice. Closely interlinked is the question for the D3
>>> You suggestions are highly welcomed.
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "cp2k" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> 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...
More information about the CP2K-user