DFTB3 within QM/MM simulations
Jadzia
c.gor... at gmail.com
Fri Sep 15 10:05:26 UTC 2017
For a further test, I made a smaller water box with only 22 Angstrom box
edge length this (before 42 Angstrom).
I adapted the QM Poisson parameters to:
&POISSON
&EWALD
EWALD_TYPE spme
ALPHA 0.3
GMAX 11 11 11
O_SPLINE 5
&END EWALD
&END POISSON
Now the waters are falling apart again. GMAX I have set to half of the box
edge lengths, because this worked in the previous test system.
My guess is that the QM/MM electrostatic interaction somehow disturbs the
QM density in an unnatural way. The question is can this be fixed?
Best wishes,
Jadzia
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 6:35:25 AM UTC+2, Jadzia wrote:
>
> I have contacted one of the developers of DFTB3. He has also much
> experience with DFTB3 QM/MM water simulations, and he said that even though
> DFTB3 has a few problems with water, these should not cause them to fall
> apart.
>
> Therefore there seem to be two possibilities:
>
> 1. Something is wrong with the setup.
> 2. There is a bug in CP2K.
>
> I have tried my best to check if something is wrong with the setup, but I
> couldn't find anything. Also, I have run a lot of simulations with
> different settings.
> If it is a bug in CP2K I cannot tell, this might be a question for the
> developers.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jadzia
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 10:38:16 AM UTC+2, Jadzia wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm trying to use DFTB3 as the QM method of a QM/MM simulation of water
>> (which is only a test system).
>>
>> However, my QM water molecules are falling apart. At first some H20
>> molecules form H3O+ and OH-, and then it goes on to form H4O++ and O--. All
>> this happens between QM atoms only.
>>
>> I have adjusted and switched many QM and QMMM parameters (see also my
>> last topic here
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cp2k/EmRoMadjbRw> which was
>> intended to get the same simulations running with fully periodic QM/MM
>> PBC). As I have found out, it seems that the Hubbard derivative (which is
>> to my knowledge the DFTB3_PARAM in CP2K) is related to the problem. If I do
>> not specify this parameter for the H and O atoms (it is set to 0 by default
>> by CP2K) then my waters are not falling apart. The Hubbard derivatives I
>> have used are the ones provided by dftb.org.
>>
>> Do you think it is fine to run the simulations without specifying the
>> Hubbard derivatives? (i.e. using the default value of 0)
>> And do you have any other suggestions or comments on why this problem
>> could arise or solved?
>>
>> If I run QM-only simulations with the same DFTB3 settings and with the
>> official Hubbard derivative parameters from dftb.org, then the
>> simulations run just fine. Only when enabling QM/MM my QM water falls apart.
>>
>> However, I now found out that even without Hubbard derivatives I manage
>> to let the water fall apart, namely when I change the Poisson settings of
>> the QM region. With the following QM Poisson settings the water does not
>> fall apart:
>>
>> &POISSON
>> &EWALD
>> EWALD_TYPE SPME
>> GMAX 25
>> O_SPLINE 5
>> &END EWALD
>> &END POISSON
>>
>> The entire input file is attached as well. When changing the Poisson
>> settings to values which seem to be more optimal:
>>
>> &POISSON
>> &EWALD
>> ALPHA .44
>> EWALD_TYPE SPME
>> GMAX 42 42 43
>> O_SPLINE 6
>> &END EWALD
>> &END POISSON
>>
>> then the QM water falls apart. Which I find strange since these Poisson
>> settings are more "sound" because they are more close to what is
>> recommended. E.g. the box size is 42 42 53 Angstrom, and it is recommended
>> to use 1 per Angstrom for GMAX. Also, O_SPLINE was set before to 5, which
>> can lead to an interpolation problem to my knowledge.
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing from you and your recommendations.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Jadzia
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20170915/7ed7b601/attachment.htm>
More information about the CP2K-user
mailing list