<div dir="ltr">Dear Tobias<br><div><div><br>you will get what you want if you:<br><br>1) follow exactly the Juerg's suggestion regarding the scf convergence as well as for the geometry optimization.<br><br>2) make sure for the Vibrational analysis calculations you start from the optimized geometry (RESTART+GEO_opt) <br>
<br>
3) use DX=0.02<br><br>Best regards,<br>Ali Kachmar<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:22 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hut...@chem.uzh.ch" target="_blank">hut...@chem.uzh.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi<br>
<br>
maybe it would be a good idea to test your settings with a<br>
smaller molecule.<br>
<br>
It looks to me like you should considerably tighten the<br>
convergence criteria, both for the SCF and the geometry<br>
optimization. Especially, if you use a small DX you will need<br>
a very well converged energy.<br>
<br>
I would use a RMS_FORCE of 5. 10-5 or smaller and a<br>
SCF convergence of 1. 10-7 or better.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Juerg Hutter<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Juerg Hutter Phone : <a href="tel:%2B%2B41%2044%20635%204491" value="+41446354491" target="_blank">++41 44 635 4491</a><br>
Institut für Chemie C FAX : <a href="tel:%2B%2B41%2044%20635%206838" value="+41446356838" target="_blank">++41 44 635 6838</a><br>
Universität Zürich E-mail: <a href="mailto:hut...@chem.uzh.ch" target="_blank">hut...@chem.uzh.ch</a><br>
Winterthurerstrasse 190<br>
CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
-----<a href="mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp...@googlegroups.com</a> wrote: -----<br>
To: <a href="mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp...@googlegroups.com</a><br>
From: Tobias Kraemer <<a href="mailto:161brun...@gmail.com" target="_blank">161brun...@gmail.com</a>><br>
Sent by: <a href="mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp...@googlegroups.com</a><br>
Date: 08/05/2014 04:11PM<br>
Subject: [CP2K:5585] DX in vibrational analysis<br>
<div><div><br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
<br>
following my previous post (huge number of imaginary frequencies...) on this issue, I have in the meantime<br>
tried to break down to problem into a smaller one.Basically, instead of using the full bulk system, I have tried<br>
a simple optimization and frequency calculation on one of the cationic portions (organometallic complex) of the<br>
system. I have used a cubic cell with a = 20 Ang. I have made sure that the structure for the subsequent vibrational<br>
analysis job does indeed correspond to the final structure of the optimization run (I have included ATOMIC_COORDINATES ON<br>
to print out the geometry in the output). Again, in the first attempt (using DX 0.001) I end up with a huge number (~50) of imaginary<br>
frequencies, including some very large ones.<br>
<br>
VIB| NORMAL MODES - CARTESIAN DISPLACEMENTS<br>
VIB|<br>
VIB| 1 2 3<br>
VIB|Frequency (cm^-1) -4133.188102 -2206.847291 -2036.718924<br>
VIB|Intensities 0.326216 0.395802 0.125908<br>
VIB|Red.Masses (a.u.) 1.746454 1.699628 1.961778<br>
VIB|Frc consts (a.u.) -1.304878 -0.103208 -0.086426<br>
<br>
<br>
Now, if I repeat the same calculation with a larger DX of 0.01, I end up with less imaginary modes, but still too many (17) to trust the result.<br>
Also, massive change now in the magnitude of the wavenumbers, which drops to -957 cm-1 for imaginary mode nr 1. Think the details here<br>
are not so relevant, but I am quite confused. So the problem is not related to the bulk system, but intrinsically related to the vibrational<br>
analysis protocol I am following at the moment. Also, as far as the SCF is concerned, I am using inner / outer SCF in combination with DIIS.<br>
Apparently the very first SCF never converges after 100 steps, which is when the outer SCF kicks in and from there everything seems to converge<br>
smoothly. Maybe my thinking is wrong here? This is what it looks like (in condensed form) from one of the replica outputs:<br>
<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run NOT converged ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 4 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 6 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 6 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 8 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 9 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 8 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 9 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 9 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 10 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 10 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 13 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 13 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 14 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 16 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 14 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 14 steps ***<br>
rhdcpenba_mol_vib-r-9.out: *** SCF run converged in 15 steps ***<br>
<br>
So my question really is, how do I choose an appropiate value for DX (and other parameters), and what is potentially going wrong here. I am absolutely clueless I must say, since I considered this as an 'easy' task. I feel that I am just simply doing something wrong, although I thought I was following standard procedure. I am keeping all other values such as SCF convergence and so on untouched, in order to not introduce any inconsistencies here. Would a more rigorous optimisation perhaps be helpful?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for your help, much appreciated. Files attached.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Tobi<br>
<br>
--<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:cp2k%2Bun...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp2k+uns...@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp...@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>[attachment "rhdcpenba_vib0001.out" removed by Jürg Hutter/at/UZH]<br>
[attachment "rhdcpenba_vib0001.inp" removed by Jürg Hutter/at/UZH]<br>
<div><div><br>
--<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:cp2k%2Bun...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp2k+uns...@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">cp...@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>