Skip to content
  • 0 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views

    OK, here we go. It just is stuck, always the same position in the output

    (ceres20-compute-46:0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95)
    (ceres24-compute-18:96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191)

    export TMPDIR=/local/bgfs/jonas.baltrusaitis/15383115
    export TMOUT=5400
    export SINGULARITY_TMPDIR=/local/bgfs/jonas.baltrusaitis/15383115

    MAX NUMBER OF SCF CYCLES 200 CONVERGENCE ON DELTAP 10**-20
    WEIGHT OF F(I) IN F(I+1) 30% CONVERGENCE ON ENERGY 10**-10
    SHRINK. FACT.(MONKH.) 6 6 6 NUMBER OF K POINTS IN THE IBZ 64
    SHRINKING FACTOR(GILAT NET) 6 NUMBER OF K POINTS(GILAT NET) 64

    *** K POINTS COORDINATES (OBLIQUE COORDINATES IN UNITS OF IS = 6)
    1-R( 0 0 0) 2-C( 1 0 0) 3-C( 2 0 0) 4-R( 3 0 0)
    5-C( 0 1 0) 6-C( 1 1 0) 7-C( 2 1 0) 8-C( 3 1 0)
    9-C( 0 2 0) 10-C( 1 2 0) 11-C( 2 2 0) 12-C( 3 2 0)
    13-R( 0 3 0) 14-C( 1 3 0) 15-C( 2 3 0) 16-R( 3 3 0)
    17-C( 0 0 1) 18-C( 1 0 1) 19-C( 2 0 1) 20-C( 3 0 1)
    21-C( 0 1 1) 22-C( 1 1 1) 23-C( 2 1 1) 24-C( 3 1 1)
    25-C( 0 2 1) 26-C( 1 2 1) 27-C( 2 2 1) 28-C( 3 2 1)
    29-C( 0 3 1) 30-C( 1 3 1) 31-C( 2 3 1) 32-C( 3 3 1)
    33-C( 0 0 2) 34-C( 1 0 2) 35-C( 2 0 2) 36-C( 3 0 2)
    37-C( 0 1 2) 38-C( 1 1 2) 39-C( 2 1 2) 40-C( 3 1 2)
    41-C( 0 2 2) 42-C( 1 2 2) 43-C( 2 2 2) 44-C( 3 2 2)
    45-C( 0 3 2) 46-C( 1 3 2) 47-C( 2 3 2) 48-C( 3 3 2)
    49-R( 0 0 3) 50-C( 1 0 3) 51-C( 2 0 3) 52-R( 3 0 3)
    53-C( 0 1 3) 54-C( 1 1 3) 55-C( 2 1 3) 56-C( 3 1 3)
    57-C( 0 2 3) 58-C( 1 2 3) 59-C( 2 2 3) 60-C( 3 2 3)
    61-R( 0 3 3) 62-C( 1 3 3) 63-C( 2 3 3) 64-R( 3 3 3)

    DIRECT LATTICE VECTORS COMPON. (A.U.) RECIP. LATTICE VECTORS COMPON. (A.U.)
    X Y Z X Y Z
    13.1430453 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.4780616 0.0000000 0.0000000
    0.0000000 11.6066979 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.5413413 0.0000000
    0.0000000 0.0000000 21.1989478 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.2963914

    DISK SPACE FOR EIGENVECTORS (FTN 10) 53868000 REALS

    SYMMETRY ADAPTION OF THE BLOCH FUNCTIONS ENABLED
    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT gordsh1 TELAPSE 186.18 TCPU 45.44

  • USE OF GHOSTS keyword

    Geometry Optimisations
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    401 Views

    Hi Othmen!

    I think that you have a problem in the geometry sections of your input files. When dealing with monoclinic structures, only one angle (beta) has to be specified as alfa and gamma are 90 by default, see page 22 of Crystal User's Manual. Furthermore, in input1 the atomic coordinates are missing, while in input2 94 atoms coordinates are written but you specified that 95 atoms are present.

    Let me know if you have other problems šŸ™‚

  • 0 Votes
    14 Posts
    2k Views

    For the purpose of finding the minimum energy structure to then do Raman calculations, it is.

    EOS gives you much more than that of course: the p(V) or, equivalently, V(p) relation (i.e. structure as a function of pressure), the bulk modulus K(p), and allows to compute the enthalpy H(p).

  • Anisotropic net in properties

    Other Questions
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    413 Views

    Hi aimipa!

    Yes there is an option to set an anisotropic grid from NEWK, you can find it at page 346 of the CRYSTAL User's Manual, see also the screenshot I attach below. You have to set IS=0 and then you can choose three different shrinking factors along B1, B2 and B3.

    For example:

    NEWK 0 12 12 8 4

    sets a shrinking factor of 12, 8 and 4 along the three reciprocal lattice vectors.

    I have never tested this anisotropic option in a BOLTZTRA calculation, would you mind let me know if it works? šŸ™‚

    newk.png

  • P 21/a symmetry not found

    Geometry Editing
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    801 Views

    Good! The clean way is:

    CRYSTAL
    1 0 0
    P 21/A

    I guess the extra "1"s you put are safe as they correspond to the identity operator.

  • Raman CPHF restart

    Vibrational Spectroscopies: IR, Raman, INS
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views

    Yes sure. No problem.
    I'm copying it here below.
    Thank you for the help

    Daria

    Furfural CRYSTAL 0 0 0 19 7.83542762 10.92181175 14.94182734 90.000000 90.000000 90.000000 33 8 1.907561246186E-01 3.035506248522E-01 4.408415126674E-01 8 -4.953260939445E-01 3.221701934644E-01 3.435788389827E-01 6 2.036695655476E-01 3.000622663369E-01 3.482645168957E-01 6 4.363374159111E-02 2.908170991680E-01 3.122160878064E-01 1 1.581732742072E-02 2.880586476013E-01 2.419150131741E-01 6 -7.402527715589E-02 2.893444053747E-01 3.842913887226E-01 1 -2.109486401803E-01 2.822752418693E-01 3.798189138779E-01 6 2.099722211847E-02 2.968688203007E-01 4.606664256414E-01 1 -9.310483322231E-03 2.937832972654E-01 -4.691825366176E-01 6 3.647591498990E-01 3.132132214593E-01 3.052219591009E-01 1 3.550467304924E-01 3.168499490771E-01 2.320173417360E-01 8 2.803460822693E-01 -3.091160241316E-01 4.442088720927E-01 8 -4.110526913885E-01 -3.641439806750E-01 3.516630126321E-01 6 2.872037985115E-01 -3.695128622796E-01 3.626185432797E-01 6 1.245767077225E-01 -3.991101749711E-01 3.362778399038E-01 1 9.163169834882E-02 -4.467733390550E-01 2.755816936910E-01 6 1.226510841197E-02 -3.550438914407E-01 4.034527830796E-01 1 -1.250093786328E-01 -3.609739865930E-01 4.033488316714E-01 6 1.122081912874E-01 -3.009269785992E-01 4.671425614917E-01 1 8.596288473646E-02 -2.539158941058E-01 -4.709004162095E-01 6 4.474098992917E-01 -3.907868742186E-01 3.203804132925E-01 1 4.349587971852E-01 -4.336723578587E-01 2.540887571847E-01 8 1.068738713332E-01 -3.851604875541E-02 3.194441316968E-01 8 -2.354778627755E-01 -1.170305051641E-02 3.709929081706E-01 6 5.921416878240E-02 -5.109842318475E-03 4.052174692072E-01 6 2.027905991547E-01 1.001107546720E-02 4.563966208009E-01 1 2.038099671676E-01 3.508046669402E-02 -4.738476409789E-01 6 3.453540637796E-01 -1.523126326522E-02 4.003413693017E-01 1 4.790458182320E-01 -1.335338648893E-02 4.173410231626E-01 6 2.808235437569E-01 -4.461452496729E-02 3.184022003331E-01 1 3.367732131084E-01 -7.306049141011E-02 2.558072164743E-01 6 -1.187612609562E-01 6.696688015001E-03 4.250681762815E-01 1 -1.454796120848E-01 3.516201574611E-02 4.940534466886E-01 FREQCALC NUMDERIV 2 INTENS INTRAMAN INTCPHF END END BASISSET POB-TZVP-REV2 DFT B3LYP-D3 XLGRID ENDdft SHRINK 4 4 TOLDEE 10 SCFDIR LEVSHIFT 6 1 FMIXING 30 TOLINTEG 7 7 7 7 14 EXCHSIZE 13220300 BIPOSIZE 13220300 ENDscf
  • 0 Votes
    4 Posts
    947 Views

    Hi,

    Hmmm...even though the SI file of the paper you have shared does point to using HSE06, it remains not entirely clear whether its parameters were kept default or altered (for all systems together or individually for instance).

    There are also differences between what different codes consider as "default" settings. For example, within the code used in the paper (VASP, nice code, no doubt), the defaults for HSE06 read (taken from https://www.vasp.at/wiki/index.php/List_of_hybrid_functionals) :
    $$ \omega= 0.2\ \mathring{A} , \quad c = 0.25, \quad \text{correlation}=\text{PBE}, $$ with the first number reading the range separation parameter (omega) and the second the fraction of exact exchange used (c).

    Within CRYSTAL (also nice code, no doubt), these read (taken from the manual, page 138):
    $$ \omega= 0.11\ a_0^{-1}, \quad c = 0.25, \quad \text{correlation}=\text{PBE}, $$ adopting the same labels.

    Not sure about the exact definition of units (perhaps a developer can comment if this is indeed Bohr radius as assumed?), but you can already see the subtle differences having to be taken into account when comparing between codes.

    A few other thoughts worth considering:

    In the paper, the structure was optimized with PBEsol and on top of that geometry HSE06 was applied as a single-point calculation. Not sure about the exact composition of those ZIFs, but the structural differences could play a significant role as well (planewave codes are very costly when optimizing a structure with hybrid functionals). Here is also a good read on this topic: doi.org/10.1088/2516-1075/aafc4b

    One final small comment. Within the PAW formalism implemented in VASP, scalar relativistic effects are included in the pseudopotentials by default. No problem, cool feature, but should be taken into account when comparing results, especially for heavier elements (longer discussion found here https://blog.vasp.at/forum/viewtopic.php?t=902)

    Hope this helps!

    Cheers,
    Aleks

  • Mixed Basis Sets for SOC

    Spin-Orbit Coupling and SCDFT
    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    920 Views

    Thanks Jacques! These are very informative.
    The information for specific basis sets is helpful, I will try them.

  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    572 Views

    Hello Prof. Erba,

    Thank you for providing the reference and relevant pages. This is very useful.

    Best,
    Danny

  • Basis Sets for Spin-Orbit

    Spin-Orbit Coupling and SCDFT
    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views

    Thank you so much
    this helped a lot

  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    751 Views

    Thank you very much for the detailed explanation—this really helped clarify things for me! The plot and your explanation made it all very clear.

  • 0 Votes
    11 Posts
    2k Views

    Your response is incredibly valuable—thank you so much.I suspect that the DIIS/Anderson extrapolation might have 'hit' a local minimum, so the density guess in iteration 8 happened to yield a total energy extremely close to that of the previous step, resulting in a very small Ī”E.
    CYC 0 ETOT(AU) -8.456120523718E+03 DETOT -8.46E+03 tst 0.00E+00 PX 1.00E+00
    CYC 1 ETOT(AU) -8.390242659622E+03 DETOT 6.59E+01 tst 0.00E+00 PX 1.00E+00
    CYC 2 ETOT(AU) -8.391027170997E+03 DETOT -7.85E-01 tst 3.34E-03 PX 1.13E-01
    CYC 3 ETOT(AU) -8.391734802465E+03 DETOT -7.08E-01 tst 2.44E-03 PX 1.02E-01
    CYC 4 ETOT(AU) -8.392064543836E+03 DETOT -3.30E-01 tst 8.38E-04 PX 4.49E-02
    CYC 5 ETOT(AU) -8.392086825687E+03 DETOT -2.23E-02 tst 1.24E-04 PX 1.72E-02
    CYC 6 ETOT(AU) -8.392095974656E+03 DETOT -9.15E-03 tst 2.86E-05 PX 9.66E-03
    CYC 7 ETOT(AU) -8.392097542826E+03 DETOT -1.57E-03 tst 3.85E-06 PX 4.81E-03
    CYC 8 ETOT(AU) -8.392097541980E+03 DETOT 8.46E-07 tst 5.41E-06 PX 3.18E-03
    CYC 9 ETOT(AU) -8.392098065539E+03 DETOT -5.24E-04 tst 4.69E-06 PX 3.18E-03
    While this DETOT value satisfies the default energy convergence criterion, the corresponding values suggest that the electron density had not yet fully stabilized. This aligns well with your suggestion that tightening the convergence threshold would lead to a more reliable result.
    Thank you again for your guidance.

  • Usage of the RESTART Keyword

    Geometry Optimisations
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    906 Views

    Many thanks for your detailed explanation and for checking the code — that definitely clarifies things. I really appreciate your help!

  • Error in Projected DOS Atom Indices

    Density-of-States
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    540 Views

    Oh yes, right. My apologies. I did not notice this. Thank you Giacomo!

  • COHP calculations Issue

    Moved Density-of-States
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    556 Views

    Hi,

    Can you try to re-run the COHP calculation by using:

    COHP 16 500 200 360 2 12 0

    instead of

    COHP 16 500 200 360 1 12 0

    This should generate a file COHP.DAT
    Let me know how this goes.

  • 0 Votes
    4 Posts
    684 Views

    Hi Alessandro and Giacomo,

    Thank you for the clear and helpful explanations!

    I tried running the calculation with 32 cores, and it indeed helped with memory management. I’ll continue experimenting to optimize performance. Really appreciate your guidance and the references!

  • 0 Votes
    10 Posts
    2k Views

    you're the best, thank you for going extra mile

  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    575 Views

    Thank you very much, that worked (but not restart)

  • Spin polarised calculation

    Moved Single-Point Calculations
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views

    Dear Eleonora and Aleks,

    Thank you so much for the detailed explanation and for sharing the corrected input/output file. That really clarified the issue. I tried your suggested settings with FMIXING and SPINLOCK adjustments, and the geometry optimization is running well with no errors. Have a nice day!

    Best,
    Aparajita

  • 0 Votes
    2 Posts
    527 Views

    Hi,

    I think that the best way to proceed in this case would be to restart the calculation one or more times. To do this, you just have to make sure that the scratch folder is not deleted when the calculation stops. Basically, you would run a first job with:

    FREQCALC END

    Then, after the first calculation stops (maybe because you reached a wall clock time limit) you would run a second job restarting from the first as:

    FREQCALC RESTART END

    In order to make this restart work, you need a few files from the previous job to be placed in the scratch folder of the new job: FREQINFO.DAT, fort.13 and fort.9 (to be renamed fort.20 in the new folder).

    If needed, you can repeat this restart process multiple times until completion of the frequency calculation.

    Hope this helps,