On 01/10/2018 21:21, Lorenzo Paulatto wrote:
I've recently been using the spdf pseudopotentials for Ce and Gd from the pslibrary. I can say that:
1. They require a monster cutoff (200 Ry for Ce, and 100 for Gd)
2. They require +U, especially Ce
3. Results were quite good



Lorenzo - sure, but why? Wentzcovitch pseudopotential are more accurate,
and they require roughly ~40Ry.

                        nicola

--
Lorenzo Paulatto
Written on a virtual keyboard with real fingers

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 18:28 Nicola Marzari, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



    Dear Martin,

    we tested a couple of pseudo libraries with the f frozen, but apart
    from
    La they do not work that well in general. As mentioned by Christopher,
    you want the f.

    Here are a few tests:
    https://www.materialscloud.org/discover/sssp/plot/efficiency/Ho

    and if you eg brose the provennce tree for the Ho US pslibrary 1.0
    until you get to a PWscf calculation:

    
https://www.materialscloud.org/explore/sssp/details/f2383960-43b6-4bf6-b080-b49e43c6ce12?nodeType=CALCULATION

    you can see that the pseudo tested is
    Ho.pbe-spdfn-rrkjus_psl.1.0.0.UPF

    I would tend to recommend the Wentzocvitch series, but it's true that
    all rare earths are rarely tested. In addition, they have strong
    multiconfigurational character, so standard LDA/GGA/GGA+U/HSE
    DFT doesn't do that well.

                                     nicola




    On 01/10/2018 10:30, Ing. Martin Matas wrote:
     > Dear experts,
     >
     > I appreciate that many new ultrasoft pseudopotentials for rare
    earths by Andrea Dal Corso have recently appeared on QE homepage. I
    performed calculations with a 2-atom primitive cell of metal holmium
    using Ho.pbe-spdn-rrkjus_psl.1.0.0.UPF, with both ferromagnetic and
    antiferromagnetic starting configurations.
     >
     > The resulting magnetization is always zero, not depending on
    calculation parameters (like starting_magnetization, occupation type
    and degauss, or energy cutoffs). However, exactly the same
    calculations using a norm-conserving holmium pseudopotential give
    results with a non-zero magnetization what I consider correct since
    holmium at zero temperature is ferromagnetic.
     >
     > Did anyone test these new ultrasoft pseudopotentials in this way
    and is there a way how to get magnetically correct results using them?
     > Thanks a lot.
     >
     > Martin Matas
     > PhD student
     > University of West Bohemia
     > Czech Republic
     >
     > _______________________________________________
     > users mailing list
     > [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
     > https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users
     >


-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prof Nicola Marzari, Chair of Theory and Simulation of Materials, EPFL
    Director, National Centre for Competence in Research NCCR MARVEL, EPFL
    http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/Contact http://nccr-marvel.ch/en/project
    _______________________________________________
    users mailing list
    [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users



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



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Nicola Marzari, Chair of Theory and Simulation of Materials, EPFL
Director, National Centre for Competence in Research NCCR MARVEL, EPFL
http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/Contact http://nccr-marvel.ch/en/project
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to