[CP2K-user] [CP2K:12421] Re: unwrapped ions during CELL_OPT

[Pierre Cazade]

Hi,

Thank you for your suggestion. I will try to run again the cell_opt as 
you suggest. The question remains, why VASP leads to a different 
structure, expended yes but not to that extend. Both a and c reach about 
9.2 and b reaches 43.

Regards,
Pierre

On 25/10/2019 15:44, Travis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Your input structure is very compressed. It should expand and your 
> final structure looks much more reasonable. The amount it is expanding 
> by, I would actually suggest redoing the CELL_OPT from the final 
> structure as your effective cutoff decreases when the cell volume 
> increases. Coordinates are unwrapped intentionally in all 
> calculations. You can impose PBC to wrap the coordinates using an 
> external program. I recommend Atomic Simulation Environment,
>
> Grab last image from foo-pos-1.xyz:
> https://github.com/pollardtp/asepylot/blob/master/general/pos2xyz.py
>
> Add cell parameters from command line args:
> https://github.com/pollardtp/asepylot/blob/master/general/xyz2vasp.py
>
> Generated structure is in POSCAR format, viewable with VESTA. Adapt to 
> your suiting.
>
> Delete this bit, it's specific to my setup.
> |
> fromrequireimportcheck_ase
> check_ase()
> |
>
> -T
>
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 5:46:21 AM UTC-3, Pierre-André Cazade 
> wrote:
>
>     Dear CP2K users,
>
>     I am running a CELL_OPT on a 280 atoms unit cell. It was poorly
>     resolved experimentally, yet I am surprised that some atoms wander
>     out of the unit cell and are not wrapped back in. It is quite
>     unexpected. According to the following topic:
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cp2k/rqOO2W04OPc
>     <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cp2k/rqOO2W04OPc> , CP2K
>     does not wrap atoms, at least in MD mode. This is very strange. Is
>     it intentional? Is it a bug? And does it affect in any kind of way
>     calculations?
>
>     I am bothered by the optimized structure which shows a
>     considerable increase of the "a" parameter. Again, I compared with
>     VASP and the final structure with the latter is much more
>     reasonable. I do not expect identical optimized structure but they
>     should not drift so much away from each other. Could this lack of
>     wrapping explain the divergence or it comes from inadequate SCF
>     parameters?
>
>     I attached the input file and the final restart file.
>
>     Regards,
>     Pierre
>
> -- 
> 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 cp... at googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:cp... at googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/325eba17-1ca3-4a42-bb09-9da313b118bb%40googlegroups.com 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/325eba17-1ca3-4a42-bb09-9da313b118bb%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
Dr Pierre Cazade, PhD
AD3-023, Bernal Institute,
University of Limerick,
Plassey Park Road,
Castletroy, co. Limerick,
Ireland

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20191025/1a3e096d/attachment.htm>