Dear Martina
If you look at Jia’s comment from the other side, a norm conserving pseudo might be OK with a 80/320 Ry cutoff (ONCV PPs from the sg15 library usually are). And you get rid of all the usual limitations of US (e.g. slow or unstable calculations with hybrid EXX functionals).
HTH
Giuseppe

Martina Lessio <[email protected]> ha scritto:

Dear Jia,

Thanks so much for your feedback. I see your point, although that is the
result I got from my convergence tests. Perhaps I will have another look at
my tests and check that I have not been too conservative with selecting the
parameters. Furthermore the suggested minimum cutoff for one of the pseudo
potentials I am using is 50 Ry so I don't think I can go much lower than
that.

All the best,
Martina

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Jia Chen <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Martina,

If I may interject, the advantage of ultrasoft pseudopotentail is not
using wavefunction cutoff as large as 55 Ry. Usually ultrasoft and norm
conserving pseudopotential have similar density cutoff, but ultrasoft only
need about half the wavefunction cutoff.

Cheers
Jia

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Martina Lessio <[email protected]>
wrote:

Dear Stefano,

I have one more question regarding the convergence tests. I have
performed the tests in the order that you recommended and found that if I
set ecutrho=280 Ry I can get away with ecutwfc=55 Ry without negatively
impacting the convergence. So I am thinking of using these parameters for
my future calculations. However, I have read in many QE resources that if
you use ultrasoft pseudopotentials like I do, ecutrho should be at least
equal to 8*ecutwfc. So I am now wondering whether it is an issue that in my
case ecutrho is only equal to about 5*ecutwfc or given that I performed the
recommended convergence tests it is okay to have this setup even for
pseudopotentials.

I hope my question is clear.
Thanks so much!

All the best,
Martina

Martina Lessio
Postdoctoral Research Scientist
Department of Chemistry
Columbia University


On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Martina Lessio <[email protected]>
wrote:

Dear Stefano,

Thank you very much for your prompt response, that helps a lot!
I will repeat the tests as you suggested but it's good to know that my
system is behaving normally and I can then proceed with more complex
calculations.

All the best,
Martina

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:23 AM, Stefano de Gironcoli <[email protected]
> wrote:

Dear Martina Lessio,

   first of all I would say that a convergence error of 1.d-5 Ry in a 6
atom cell looks pretty much converged to me. I think that even your ecutrho
= 240 Ry calculation (~1.d-5 Ry per atom) looks quite good.

   coming to the way things converge:

   - total energy convergence with respect to ecutwfc is expected to be
from above because of variational principle: the higher ecutwfc is the
more planewaves are included in the wavefunction expansion, hence the lower the energy. However in the ultrasoft pseudopotential definition the energy is not only a function of the wavefunctions but also includes a dependence on augmentation charges, that are localized and may contain higher Fourier
components with respect to 4*ecutwfc ( = 240 in your case). Failing to
include enough Fourier components in the augmentation charges will affect a number of integrals but not in a variational way... integrals would simply
be inaccurate and the inaccuracy can be both from above or from below.

   - I would perform cutoff convergence test in a slightly different
order: 1) I would check convergence of total energy (and stress, and
forces) as a function of ecutwfc using the default value for
ecutho=4*ecutwfc (that is without specifying ecutrho in the input). When
this procedure converges (and it can initially converge from below due to
augmentation charge Fourier components being missing) this means that
wavefunction expansion AND augmentation-charge expansion are both
converged. 2) I would then fix ecutrho=4*converged_ecutwfc, which takes
care of augmentation charge convergence, and I would check whether I can
get away with a lower ecutwfc for the wavefunction expansion.

    - as for k-point sampling convergence, there is no variational
principle w.r.t. number of k-points: it's again a matter of convergence of
an integral. The denser the grid the better the integral but there is no
variational principle with respect to which k-point you include and which
you dont.

  hope this helps

stefano

On 24/04/2018 05:56, Martina Lessio wrote:

Dear Quantum Espresso community,

I am new to Quantum Espresso and I am trying to run some simple
simulations on MoTe2 bulk. Unfortunately I seem to be having some issues
with some preliminary convergence tests for charge density cutoff and
K-point grid and I am hoping to get some help from you on this.
Here is a graph with the results of the charge density cutoff
convergence test I performed while setting the kinetic energy cutoff equal
to 60 Ry (I performed a test to set this as well):

I am worried about these results because I would expect the total
energy to go down rather than going up when I increase ecutrho. I also
observe a similar energy trend when I increase the k-point grid, which also
seems unusual and possibly wrong to me.
I am copying below the input I have used for these calculations and I
would greatly appreciate any help with figuring our whether I am doing
something wrong.

Thank you so much!

Kind Regards,
Martina Lessio

Postdoctoral Research Scientist
Department of Chemistry
Columbia University

 &control

    calculation = 'scf'

    restart_mode='from_scratch',

    prefix='MoTe2_ecutwfc',

    pseudo_dir = '/home/mlessio/espresso-5.4.0/pseudo/',

    outdir='/home/mlessio/espresso-5.4.0/tempdir/'

 /

 &system

    ibrav= 4, A=3.530, B=3.530, C=13.882, cosAB=-0.5, cosAC=0, cosBC=0,

    nat= 6, ntyp= 2,

    ecutwfc =60.0 ecutrho=300.

    nspin =4, lspinorb =.true., noncolin=.true.

 /

 &electrons

    mixing_mode = 'plain'

    mixing_beta = 0.7

    conv_thr =  1.0d-8

 /

ATOMIC_SPECIES

 Mo  95.96 Mo.rel-pbe-spn-rrkjus_psl.1.0.0.UPF

 Te  127.6 Te.rel-pbe-n-rrkjus_psl.1.0.0.UPF

ATOMIC_POSITIONS {crystal}

Te     0.333333334         0.666666643         0.625000034

Te     0.666666641         0.333333282         0.375000000

Te     0.666666641         0.333333282         0.125000000

Te     0.333333334         0.666666643         0.874999966

Mo     0.333333334         0.666666643         0.250000000

Mo     0.666666641         0.333333282         0.750000000


K_POINTS {automatic}

  8 8 2 0 0 0


_______________________________________________
users mailing [email protected]https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users




--
Martina Lessio, Ph.D.
Frontiers of Science Lecturer in Discipline
Postdoctoral Research Scientist
Department of Chemistry
Columbia University




--
Martina Lessio, Ph.D.
Frontiers of Science Lecturer in Discipline
Postdoctoral Research Scientist
Department of Chemistry
Columbia University

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users




--
Martina Lessio, Ph.D.
Frontiers of Science Lecturer in Discipline
Postdoctoral Research Scientist
Department of Chemistry
Columbia University


GIUSEPPE MATTIOLI
CNR - ISTITUTO DI STRUTTURA DELLA MATERIA
Via Salaria Km 29,300 - C.P. 10
I-00015 - Monterotondo Scalo (RM)
Mob (*preferred*) +39 373 7305625
Tel + 39 06 90672342 - Fax +39 06 90672316
E-mail: <[email protected]>

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to