Thank you very much Natalie, Paolo and Giuseppe
You’ve been very helpful, cause I had the suspect SCAN wasn’t applicable to 
this subject but I was stuck trying to find tricks to make it work.
I’d have just a last question on the topic. I was able to calculate the single 
point energy of molecular oxygen (O2) using SCAN, hence calculate the 
absorption energy for a bridged oxygen on coronene at least with respect to O2. 
Shall I consider this result satisfactory, having used the same grid that I 
used for other functionals (PBE, PBE0, …)? The absorption energy is consistent 
with the others.

Thank you again for your help, have a great day!

Filippo




Filippo Savazzi, PhD Student
Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy




> On 21 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Paolo Giannozzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I tend to agree with Natalie's conclusions. Unfortunately I am not aware of 
> any simple solution. All meta-GGA functionals do strange things in systems 
> with regions of vanishing charge, and SCAN is the one that gives less 
> problems (!). SCF divergence is maybe extreme, but there are also problems 
> like this one: https://gitlab.com/QEF/q-e/issues/32 
> <https://gitlab.com/QEF/q-e/issues/32>, indicating that one may need a 
> surprisingly dense FFT grid to get reliable results
> 
> Paolo
> 
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:22 PM Holzwarth, Natalie <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I have looked into the SCAN functional for an isolated atom, also finding 
> that Vxc increases to unphysically large values as the density decreases 
> exponentially.     We were able to demonstrate for ourselves that the SCAN 
> functional itself is responsible for this behavior due to the appearance of 
> the density in denominators of various terms.    It is my understanding that 
> the SCAN developers are aware of this issue and are working on a remedy.    
> In the meantime, perhaps it would be good to use the SCAN functional only for 
> systems that do not have exponentially decreasing densities.   At least that 
> was my conclusion.    Sincerely, Natalie Holzwarth
> 
> N. A. W. Holzwarth                                       email: 
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Department of Physics                                  web: 
> http://www.wfu.edu/~natalie <http://www.wfu.edu/~natalie>
> Wake Forest University                                 phone: 1-336-758-5510 
> Winston-Salem, NC 27109 USA                     office: Rm. 300 Olin Physical 
> Lab
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:26 PM Filippo Savazzi <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Thanks Giuseppe,
> I’ll give it a try, I didn’t think about setting the occupation from input.
> Thank you for your help.
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Filippo
> 
> 
> 
> Filippo Savazzi, PhD Student
> Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
> 
> > On 21 Nov 2018, at 19:00, Giuseppe Mattioli <[email protected] 
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Filippo
> > Isolated open-shell atoms are tricky. Please look here for hints
> > 
> > yourpathtoQE6.3/PW/examples/example05
> > 
> > HTH
> > Giuseppe
> > 
> > Quoting Filippo Savazzi <[email protected] 
> > <mailto:[email protected]>>:
> > 
> >> Dear QE users,
> >> 
> >> I’m Filippo Savazzi, a PhD student from Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
> >> I’m using QE since a couple of years, and just browsing the archives of 
> >> this mailing list or enquiring the mighty google I’ve been lucky enough 
> >> that this is actually the first time I have to post a question.
> >> Thanks everybody for the indirect support you gave me in these years.
> >> 
> >> I’m calculating absorption energies of oxygen on a coronene molecule, as 
> >> part of a little evaluation of different available XC functionals that I’m 
> >> doing. I’m calculating the absorption energy both with respect to the 
> >> molecular oxygen and with atomic oxygen.
> >> My problems arise when I try to calculate the energy of a single atom of 
> >> oxygen using SCAN. In this case the energy diverges until the SCF fails. I 
> >> have no troubles running the calculation on the actual system (coronene + 
> >> bridged O), neither on a molecular oxygen (triplet O2); the  issue is just 
> >> localised on the single oxygen atom. My first guess was that the 
> >> implementation of SCAN has either troubles in dealing with isolated 
> >> systems or with spin polarization, but I ruled out these issues when I was 
> >> able to calculate the single point energy of an oxygen molecule. Are you 
> >> aware of any other problems using SCAN in these conditions?
> >> In the following I attach the input for pw.x I’m using, as well as a brief 
> >> example of the SCF part in the output. I already played with cell 
> >> dimension (thinking too much vacuum could have been the problem), as well 
> >> as with ecutwfc and ecutrho (so indirectly with the integration grid), and 
> >> then, just to give it a chance, with the diagonalization method and 
> >> beta-mixing.
> >> 
> >> Thank you in advance for your attention.
> >> 
> >> Best,
> >> Filippo
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Filippo Savazzi, PhD Student
> >> Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> &CONTROL
> >>   calculation = ’scf',
> >>   restart_mode='from_scratch',
> >>   pseudo_dir = '/home/filippo/pseudo',
> >>   outdir='./tmp_o',
> >>   prefix='oxy',
> >> /
> >> &SYSTEM
> >>   ibrav=6,
> >>   celldm(1)=20,
> >>   celldm(3)=1,
> >>   nat=1,
> >>   ntyp=1,
> >>   input_dft='scan',
> >>   ecutwfc=100,
> >>   tot_magnetization=2,
> >>   nspin=2,
> >> /
> >> &ELECTRONS
> >>   diagonalization = 'cg',
> >>   electron_maxstep = 300,
> >>   mixing_mode = 'local-TF',
> >>   mixing_beta = 0.7,
> >>   conv_thr =  1.0d-7,
> >> /
> >> &IONS
> >>   ion_dynamics='damp',
> >>   upscale=1000,
> >> /
> >> ATOMIC_SPECIES
> >> O 15.99 O_ONCV_PBE-1.0.upf
> >> ATOMIC_POSITIONS {angstrom}
> >> O        0.0000   0.0000   0.0000
> >> K_POINTS{gamma}
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> EXTRACT OF OUTPUT:
> >> 
> >> Dense  grid:   540376 G-vectors     FFT dimensions: ( 128, 128, 128)
> >> 
> >>     Estimated max dynamical RAM per process >     116.06 MB
> >> 
> >>     Estimated total dynamical RAM >       1.36 GB
> >>     Generating pointlists ...
> >>     new r_m :   0.4125 (alat units)  8.2500 (a.u.) for type    1
> >> 
> >>     Initial potential from superposition of free atoms
> >> 
> >>     starting charge    5.99905, renormalised to    6.00000
> >> 
> >>     negative rho (up,down):  4.917E-05 4.917E-05
> >>     Starting wfcs are random
> >> 
> >>     total cpu time spent up to now is        3.1 secs
> >> 
> >>     Self-consistent Calculation
> >> 
> >>     iteration #  1     ecut=   100.00 Ry     beta= 0.70
> >>     CG style diagonalization
> >>     ethr =  1.00E-02,  avg # of iterations =  9.6
> >> 
> >>     negative rho (up,down):  1.044E-03 1.363E-03
> >> 
> >>     total cpu time spent up to now is      240.5 secs
> >> 
> >>     total energy              =    2429.63502350 Ry
> >>     Harris-Foulkes estimate   =     -31.41616940 Ry
> >>     estimated scf accuracy    <       3.28037744 Ry
> >> 
> >>     total magnetization       =     2.00 Bohr mag/cell
> >>     absolute magnetization    =     2.00 Bohr mag/cell
> >> 
> >>     iteration #  2     ecut=   100.00 Ry     beta= 0.70
> >>     CG style diagonalization
> >>     c_bands:  4 eigenvalues not converged
> >>     ethr =  1.00E-02,  avg # of iterations = 13.6
> >> 
> >>     negative rho (up,down):  2.824E-03 3.815E-03
> >> 
> >>     total cpu time spent up to now is      331.7 secs
> >> 
> >>     total energy              =   33638.43350785 Ry
> >>     Harris-Foulkes estimate   =     318.68713998 Ry
> >>     estimated scf accuracy    <       0.37936007 Ry
> >> 
> >>     total magnetization       =     2.00 Bohr mag/cell
> >>     absolute magnetization    =     2.00 Bohr mag/cell
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > users mailing list
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> > <https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> <https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users>_______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> <https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
> 
> -- 
> Paolo Giannozzi, Dip. Scienze Matematiche Informatiche e Fisiche,
> Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy
> Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to