Dear Peter,
Thanks so much for solving this problem. Now I am wondering
how many calculations I will need to redo to make sure that everything is
well-converged. For this example of fcc Sc, I added the following lines
to Sc.in0:
NR2V FFTopt IFFT
45 45 45 5.000 1
Perhaps it would have worked as well to replace the last line by
-1 -1 -1 5.000 1 ?
Do you generally add similar lines to all of your calculations or only
those using PBE?In your experience is IFFTfact=5.0 always necessary or
is Sc particularly problematic? Or is it because we have chosen to use
such small values of RMT? I would have thought that as long as Gmax is
large enough, and the linearization energies are good enough, the
calculations should be insensitive to RMT. Normally this seems to be the
case. It would be nice if there were a universal recipe for always
getting converged results...
THanks again for all of your advice,
Natalie
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Peter Blaha wrote:
> Sorry, but I cannot reproduce your results.
>
> With good parameters I get nice and smooth curves.
> The lattice parameter (PBE) is near 8.73, which is smaller
> than in your plots.
> The RMT dependency is quite small, provided you use good parameters:
>
> RKmax=10 (9 is probably almost ok)
> NUMK: I used 11000 (22x22x22) points in full-BZ.(16x16x16 leads to some noise)
> Most important for GGA calculations: You have to use a VERY good FFT mesh for
> the xc-energy, in particular for smaller spheres. I used IFFT 5 (instead of
> the default 2) in case.in0
>
> I attach some plots.
>
>
> Am 07.09.2010 04:58, schrieb Natalie Holzwarth:
> > Dear Wien2k mailing list,
> > For many years, we have been using the wien2k code as a standard for
> > comparing our PAW calculations. Recently, we noticed some difficulties
> > particularly with GGA calculations. The attached example is for Sc in an
> > fcc structure using what we think are well converged parameters
> > (RMT*KMAX=9, GMAX=14, 16x16x16 kpoints). We calculate the total energy
> > versus lattice constant both for lda and gga varying RMT to make sure that
> > there is no sensitivity to the linear LAPW/APW parameters. RMT = 2.0,
> > 1.6, and 1.5 for lda/gga, lda1/gga1, and lda2/gga2, respectively. The
> > binding energy curves are identical for the 3 lda calculations. But for
> > the gga calculations, there seems to be a very strange discontinuity at
> > the lattice constant of 9.0 which is very sensitive to the choice of RMT.
> > The Sc.in1 file that we used for gga is attached and was obtained from
> > running lstart. Of course I will be very embarrassed if there is a typo
> > in our files, but we have not been able to discover it for several days.
> > Any advice will be very much appreciated.Thanks, kindly,
> > Natalie Holzwarth
> >
> > N. A. W. Holzwarth email: natalie at wfu.edu
> > Department of Physics www: http://www.wfu.edu/~natalie
> > Wake Forest University voice: 336-758-5510
> > Winston-Salem, NC 27109-7507fax: 336-758-6142
> > U. S. A.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wien mailing list
> > Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
> > http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
>
> --
>
>P.Blaha
> --
> Peter BLAHA, Inst.f. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna, A-1060 Vienna
> Phone: +43-1-58801-15671 FAX: +43-1-58801-15698
> Email: blaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.atWWW:
> http://info.tuwien.ac.at/theochem/
> --
>
N. A. W. Holzwarth email: natalie at wfu.edu
Department of Physics www: http://www.wfu.edu/~natalie
Wake Forest University voice: 336-758-5510
Winston-Salem, NC 27109-7507fax: 336-758-6142
U. S. A.
