Dear VASP developer,
Before I perform a SCF static self-consistent calculation for further calculating the band structure, I checked NSW = 0 and > 0. The only difference of input files in the attached two jobs is the NSW values in the INCAR files.
For NSW = 9999, I got:
FORCES: max atom, RMS 0.007869 0.004875
(This indicates the force convergence criterion is well reached: 0.007869 < |EDIFFG| = 0.008.)
and
energy without entropy= -600.15816739 energy(sigma->0) = -600.15816739
For NSW = 0, I got:
FORCES: max atom, RMS 0.152187 0.091868
(This indicates the force convergence criterion is NOT reached: 0.152187 > |EDIFFG| = 0.008.)
and
energy without entropy= -595.02541503 energy(sigma->0) = -595.02954398
(This energy value is significantly different from the above value from NSW = 9999.)
Questions:
1.
A SCF static self-consistent calculation requires NSW = 0, but it doesn't converge in this case at all. Doesn't it cause problems to use such a result (CHGCAR) to calculate energy bands?
2.
Can I directly use the output from NSW > 0, e.g., from NSW = 9999 (of course I should set LCHARG = T for getting CHGCAR), i.e., just skip the step of any SCF static self-consistent calculation with NSW = 0, to calculate the band structure?
3.
For anti-ferromagnetic systems containing many atoms, MAGMOM input on a single line in an INCAR file needs writing many 1 and -1. Do you have any simple ways (format) for writing this, e.g., like 20*(1, -1) instead of 1, -1, 1, -1, ......, 1, -1, or 20*(1, 1, -1, -1) instead of 1, 1, -1, -1, 1, 1, -1, -1, ......, 1, 1, -1, -1, etc.?
Thank You!
Yong
Very confusing NSW = 0 and > 0
Moderators: Global Moderator, Moderator
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Very confusing NSW = 0 and > 0
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:03 pm
Re: Very confusing NSW = 0 and > 0
Dear Yong,
Could you try both calculations with a different value for ALGO? Either Normal or, if the system isn't too big, Exact? Also, from your OUTCAR files I can see that even though for NSW=9999 you set IBRION=2, VASP did not perform any ionic relaxation.
Kind regards,
Pedro
Could you try both calculations with a different value for ALGO? Either Normal or, if the system isn't too big, Exact? Also, from your OUTCAR files I can see that even though for NSW=9999 you set IBRION=2, VASP did not perform any ionic relaxation.
Kind regards,
Pedro
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:03 pm
Re: Very confusing NSW = 0 and > 0
Dear Yong,
Regarding your other questions:
Kind regards,
Pedro
Regarding your other questions:
If the SCF run did not reach convergence, it cannot be guaranteed that the bands you are going to plot have any meaning, since the ground-state density has not been optimised.1. A SCF static self-consistent calculation requires NSW = 0, but it doesn't converge in this case at all. Doesn't it cause problems to use such a result (CHGCAR) to calculate energy bands?
Yes, provided that convergence was achieved, there should be no problems in doing so.2. Can I directly use the output from NSW > 0, e.g., from NSW = 9999 (of course I should set LCHARG = T for getting CHGCAR), i.e., just skip the step of any SCF static self-consistent calculation with NSW = 0, to calculate the band structure?
You can specify several values for the starting spin using the syntax described here wiki/index.php/MAGMOM. For the non-collinear case however, I am afraid that you must specify them line by line whenever they are different from zero.3. For anti-ferromagnetic systems containing many atoms, MAGMOM input on a single line in an INCAR file needs writing many 1 and -1. Do you have any simple ways (format) for writing this, e.g., like 20*(1, -1) instead of 1, -1, 1, -1, ......, 1, -1, or 20*(1, 1, -1, -1) instead of 1, 1, -1, -1, 1, 1, -1, -1, ......, 1, 1, -1, -1, etc.?
Kind regards,
Pedro