optimized EOS coordinates and final CVOLOPT

job314

In other words, it always prints coordinates for the optimized minima at each point in EOS (e.g. points corresponding 0.94, 0.96, 0.98 etc EOS optimizations). I do not believe (or I can't find at least) that it then prints coordinates and lattice parameters for that global minimum that it calculates between those EOS points that is exact EOS minimum

aerba

Hi,

I think that my point is that if you want to find the minimum of the PES you really do not need to run an EOS calculation. You can simply run an OPTGEOM calculation. EOS is useful if you need to take the pressure into explicit account and/or compute the bulk modulus.

If you have already run an EOS calculation with the PREOPTGEOM option, the structure corresponding to the minimum is the one obtained at the end of the pre-optimization, thus before all the various 0.94, 0.96, etc. compressions/expansions are explored. So in this case, all you need to do is look in your output file for the first occurrence of the "OPT END" string. You will find the optimized structure printed in its vicinity.

Hope this helps,

job314

HI Alessandro, I need to think about it. OPTGEOM will perform something at lattice parameters that are 1.0 with respect to EOS. Those are not optimal. I am looking for lowest global energy structure with optimal volume. I will revert to you with an example

job314

In other words, I am looking for something similar to FULLOPTG but I want to do it via systematic scanning of lattice parameters, thus EOS

job314

I suppose I am trying to do something like this with EOS, then use that minimum set of lattice parameters (minimum energy corresponding volume) and use it in all of my Raman calculations

https://www.vasp.at/wiki/index.php/Fcc_Si

aerba

Maybe I understand where the confusion may come from. Till CRYSTAL09, the OPTGEOM option corresponded to a geometry optimization of just the atomic coordinates within a fixed cell. Since CRYSTAL14 (and thus in versions 14, 17 and 23) the OPTGEOM option corresponds to a full geometry optimization (i.e. OPTGEOM is now equivalent to FULLOPTG).

So, OPTGEOM provides the minimum energy structure.

I would need to better understand what you mean by systematic scanning of lattice parameters to comment on that point.

Let me just reiterate on the numerical nature of both the OPTGEOM and EOS options: the minimum structure from both approaches should be the same. If they differ, it is just due to numerical reasons and, personally, I would tend to trust OPTGEOM better.

job314

Yes, we finally approach the same idea. Yes, FULOPTG - at least in other software packages FULLOPTG equivalent is rarely done, cell shape optimization is done systematically similarly to EOS. See example above what is done - a series of scans where volume is optimized and different deviation from 1.0 lattice parameters. VASP does that with ISFI=4.

But do you expect FULLOPTG result in lattice parameters that closely correspond those of the minimum in fitted EOS?

aerba

Absolutely yes, the optimized structure you get from OPTGEOM (i.e. a full optimization of both atomic coordinates and cell shape/volume, in CRYSTAL) is very very very close the minimum from fitted EOS, and if they differ I would blame EOS over OPTGEOM (meaning that maybe more points in the EOS scan would be required). Additionally, OPTGEOM is much much faster than EOS as only 1 versus N optimization processes are actually performed.

So, to get the fully relaxed structure, I strongly recommend to use OPTGEOM in CRYSTAL. This is what I usually do before running frequency and Raman calculations.

job314

OK, so to me that makes EOS completely redundant... I just used the final structure of the first optimization cycle before it started EOS and calculating Raman now

aerba

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).