Dear Jonas,
I always use the foramt following to do a constrained geometry optimization.
%block Zmatrix                                                                
cartesian                                                                     
4     0.832500     1.441900     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     0.832500     4.325700     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     0.832500     7.209500     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     3.329900     0.000000     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     3.329900     2.883800     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     3.329900     5.767600     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     5.827400    -1.441900     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     5.827400     1.441900     0.070000    0    0    0                       
4     5.827400     4.325700     0.070000    0    0    0                       
1     3.602290     1.731278     6.212320    1    1    1                      
1     3.319832     2.314888     7.483680    1    1    1                       
1     2.095981     1.995008     8.160953    1    1    1                       
1     1.179880     1.055287     7.579063    1    1    1                       
1     1.463109     0.470284     6.307043    1    1    1                       
1     2.686364     0.792157     5.629784    1    1    1                       
2     4.560824     2.006388     5.644557    1    1    1                       
2     4.060912     3.044923     7.962504    1    1    1                       
2     0.218799     0.778868     8.141618    1    1    1                       
2     0.720051    -0.260182     5.831012    1    1    1                       
2     2.264637     3.524194     9.544223    1    1    1                       
2     0.774280     2.665518     9.602215    1    1    1                       
2     4.021096     0.084236     4.221899    1    1    1                       
2     2.491712    -0.710195     4.216641    1    1    1                       
3     1.840356     2.531978     9.498710    0    0    1                       
3     2.958183     0.262423     4.292613    0    0    1                      
4     2.438337     1.576108     2.385995    0    0    1                       
4     2.578104     1.329674    11.405459    0    0    1                       
4     1.665000     0.000000    13.722500    0    0    0                      
4     1.665000     2.883800    13.722500    0    0    0                       
4     1.665000     5.767600    13.722500    0    0    0                      
4     4.162400    -1.441900    13.722500    0    0    0                      
4     4.162400     1.441900    13.722500    0    0    0                      
4     4.162400     4.325700    13.722500    0    0    0                       
4     6.659800    -2.883800    13.722500    0    0    0                      
4     6.659800     0.000000    13.722500    0    0    0                       
4     6.659800     2.883800    13.722500    0    0    0                       
%endblock Zmatrix             


in which 0 implies constraining,and 1 implies unconstraining.
You can find it at pages 33-34 in siesta-3.0-b manual.
Hope it to be helpful.

2010-04-28



Guangping Zhang



发件人: Jonas Baltrusaitis <jasiu...@yahoo.com>
发送时间: 2010-04-27 22:51
主 题: [SIESTA-L] constraints do not constrain
收件人: siesta-l@uam.es



Dear all,

after trying several times I have to conclude that geometry constraints in 
Siesta do not work. In the attached output (and several others) I tried to 
constraint bulk SiO2 in atomic position while relaxing only OH groups. To my 
surprise, all of the atoms moved, though inner, constrained atoms, somewhat 
less. Still, I was thinking that constrained atom position should not change at 
all. Does constraint work differently in Siesta and it allows those atom to 
relax?

Jonas

Responder a