[CP2K:8462] Need advice for setting CP2K input for all electron CAM-B3LYP calculations
Samir ABDELOUAHED
abdeloua... at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 12:28:13 UTC 2018
Dear Matt,
Thank you so much for the quick reply.
One of the powerful feature of cp2k (which is not available in most of the
other codes as far as I know) is the ability/possibility to use different
XC for different parts of the same material.
As I am going to study the adsorption of C60 on graphene/graphite I would
like to use B3LYP/PBE0 for C60 and PBE for graphene. This is because PBE is
suitable for graphene or metals while B3LYP does a great job for insulators
and molecules with a big HOMO-LUMO gap.
A very similar work is already published using cp2k for MgO on Ag(001):
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp311141k
As I have the same atom kind for C60 and graphene I don't really know how
to set B3LYP for C60 and PBE for graphene or Carbon cluster.
Many many thanks again for your help,
Samir
Le dimanche 17 juin 2018 23:12:23 UTC+1, Matt W a écrit :
>
> This paper cites a couple of sources saying the C60 HOMO-LUMO gap as 2.77
> at B3LYP/6-31G**
>
> https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.115103
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.aps.org%2Fprb%2Fabstract%2F10.1103%2FPhysRevB.83.115103&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGf1AtZ_DpdxI4NrD-L6b4544wpVA>
>
> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:58:00 PM UTC+1, Samir ABDELOUAHED wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Juerg,
>> I am facing a serious problem getting the right HOMO-LUMO gap for an
>> isolated C60. I've a pending draft on C60 adsorption and I don't have any
>> more the ADF license. So I thought cp2k might be the best alternative. So
>> I started calculating the C60 gap. The problem is that I am still far from
>> the C60 experimental gap of around 5 eV.
>> the PBE, B3LYP , and PBE0 (using either GTH or MOLOPT DZVP basis set)
>> calculations gave 1.62 eV, 2.64, and 2.90 eV, respectively.
>> As the ADF B3LYP All electron-STO basis set calculations gave around 4.7
>> eV I thought that a cp2k B3LYP all electron-GTO basis set would give a
>> similar value...But apparently it is not the case. Indeed, I've got similar
>> values to the pseudopotential calculations: 1.65, 2.69, and 2.95 eV.
>> So I am wondering whether this is due to the fact that the ADF
>> calculations were done using STO, which are more efficient than GTO. If it
>> is the case which other GTO basis should I take to get the right gap. Or is
>> there some problems in my settings (inputs).
>> Please find attached the inputs for these calculations (6 inputs).
>> I would like to tell you that the calculations are converged without any
>> problem even the hybrid ones as I started these calculations from a PBE
>> pre-converged calculation.
>> Many many thanks for your help,
>> Samir
>> Le mardi 6 décembre 2016 14:05:45 UTC+1, jgh a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> your definition of the HF section is not correct:
>>>
>>> &HF
>>> &SCREENING
>>> EPS_SCHWARZ 1.0E-12
>>> &END
>>> &MEMORY
>>> MAX_MEMORY 100
>>> &END
>>> &INTERACTION_POTENTIAL
>>> POTENTIAL_TYPE MIX_CL
>>> OMEGA 0.33
>>> SCALE_LONGRANGE 0.94979
>>> SCALE_COULOMB 0.18352
>>> &END
>>> &END
>>>
>>> If you want to reproduce the G09 results, I would also take the
>>> WAVELET solver (not MT), remove the XC_GRID section (no smoothing)
>>> and maybe increase the cutoff.
>>>
>>> You can find some examples in tests/QS/regtest-hybrid-3 and 4.
>>>
>>> If you want to optimize speed I would use GPW and pseudopotentials
>>> together with the ADMM method.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Juerg
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Juerg Hutter Phone : ++41 44 635 4491
>>> Institut für Chemie C FAX : ++41 44 635 6838
>>> Universität Zürich E-mail: hut... at chem.uzh.ch
>>> Winterthurerstrasse 190
>>> CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> -----cp... at googlegroups.com wrote: -----To: cp2k <cp... at googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> From: Kun-Han Lin
>>> Sent by: cp... at googlegroups.com
>>> Date: 12/06/2016 01:10PM
>>> Subject: [CP2K:8462] Need advice for setting CP2K input for all electron
>>> CAM-B3LYP calculations
>>>
>>> Dear CP2K users,
>>>
>>> Recently, I want to use CP2K to do umbrella
>>> sampling with the QM/MM method. The system is composed of a Cl anion
>>> and neutral molecule (closed shell system).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I
>>> first compared the static energy-distance curve calculated by CP2K and
>>> Gaussian under the same QM condition (CAM-B3LYP, 6-311G**,
>>> I also tried adding diffuse function in Gaussian, the results are
>>> similar to that without diffuse function). However, the results from
>>> CP2K give incorrect long-range behavior and the SCF also does not
>>> converge (especially in when the monomer are largely separated,
>>> I put in CP2K result.pdf file). Therefore, I'd like to know if there is
>>> some error in my input file. I attach it in this file as well
>>> (CAM-B3LYP.inp). Note that we do need to use a range-separated
>>> functional for describing this system properly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally,
>>> I'd like to know if there is some setting to make this long-range
>>> exchange computations accurate and efficient. Since
>>> we want to do sampling, efficiency is a critical issue. If you have
>>> advice or any suggestion, please let me know. Many thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kun-Han Lin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PhD student LCMD
>>>
>>> Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
>>>
>>> EPFL SB ISIC LCMD
>>>
>>> BCH 5312 (Bât. BCH)
>>>
>>> CH-1015 Lausanne
>>>
>>> Switzerland
>>>
>>>
>>> E-mail: kun-... at epfl.ch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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 email to cp2k+... at googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k.
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [attachment "CP2K result.pdf" removed by Jürg Hutter/at/UZH]
>>> [attachment "CAM-B3LYP.inp" removed by Jürg Hutter/at/UZH]
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20180618/01e447f9/attachment.htm>
More information about the CP2K-user
mailing list