Dear Prof. Blaha,
Thank you for a rapid and detailed answer. This helps a lot!
Best regards,
Lukasz
On 9/10/2018 11:49 AM, Peter Blaha wrote:
1. CHARGE CONVERGENCE: I know this has been discussed before, but it
seems it didn't change in Wien2k_18. Here is a typical example of the
charge convergence history of the last few iterations of FM+SOC
(ferromagnetic + spin orbit coupling) calculation:
:ENERGY convergence: 0 0.0001 .0001320450000000
:CHARGE convergence: 0 0.001 .0027578
:ENERGY convergence: 1 0.0001 .0000497650000000
:CHARGE convergence: 0 0.001 .0050904
:ENERGY convergence: 1 0.0001 .0000557650000000
:CHARGE convergence: 0 0.001 .0004672
:ENERGY convergence: 1 0.0001 .0000220050000000
:CHARGE convergence: 1 0.001 -.0001786
Something strange happens with charge convergence, is this OK?
This is ok.
2. LIMITS in inso and in1c files: in order to avoid large vector
files I am changing the energy limits in inso and in1c files for band
structure calculations. SCF is done with default inso and in1c files,
then I do save_lapw, then I edit case.inso and case.in1c files, and
then I do FM+SOC band structure calculation:
#! /bin/bash
x lapw1 -band -up -p
x lapw1 -band -dn -p
x lapwso -up -p
I am using emin/emax -0.5 0.5 in both files (inso and in1c) without
changing anything else, then I have bands from limited energy range.
I just want to make sure that this procedure is fine.
No, this is NOT ok. You must not change Emax in case.in1c !
If you do, your basis set for the spin-orbit step is limited and
eigenvalues will change as compared to the scf calculation.
You can reduce emax in case.inso if you are not interested in the
bands at higher energies.
3. FM+SOC convergence: I am doing FM+SOC calculations for different
in-plane magnetization M directions in a 2D Fe(001) ferromagnetic
layer. Actually an older Wien2k_14 version was not working well for
this, results for generic M directions were really strange. Wien2k_18
seems much better, however, when starting things from the scratch
(each M angle completely separate calculation) it seems that for some
M angles the result is off, as if it didn't actually properly
converge. I am using a fairly dense mesh for SCF (2000k, 25 25 3),
and -ec 0.0001 -cc 0.001. Should I maybe try -fermit setting in
init_lapw, and what would be a reasonable value? Do I always need to
use instgen_lapw before init_lapw when starting a new case? Should I
perhaps do each next M angle on top of a previously converged M angle
(and save_lapw for each M angle)?
Doing separate calculations for different directions may / may not
yield correct results.
The proper (save) way is to use ONE case.struct file for all cases.
i) select all directions of magnetization first.
ii) Produce (using init_so) struct files, which are the same for all
cases (do not change after init_so) and use this struct file for ALL
(also non-so) calculations.
This works as:
a) generate normal struct file.
b) init -b -sp ....
c) init_so with first direction, accept the generated structure
d) init_so with second direction, accept ...
repeat this for all desired directions (or until you have a P1
structure (only identity).
e) with this setup (no new init_lapw !!!!) execute:
runsp -ec ... and save as "non-so"
runsp -so ... and save as "so-dir_2"
restore non-so; edit case.inso and put the first direction in;
runsp -so ... and save as "so-dir_1"
In this way, you can also compare the force-theorem (:SUM of first
iteration (2 numbers !) with the scf solution.
Best,
Lukasz
_______________________________________________
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
_______________________________________________
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html