Hello,
I have downloaded a LDA pseudopotential for Carbon in this link:
https://departments.icmab.es/leem/SIESTA_MATERIAL/Databases/Pseudopotentials/Pseudos_LDA_Abinit/C_html/C.html
I ran tests on molecules - pretty large ones - and it did well. I tried monolayer graphene and it also gave me good structural parameters. Now, for graphite or bilayer grahene, the energy keeps lowereing the smaller the interlayer distance (which from other codes I got 3.36 A as the optimal value.
My fdf file is:
SystemName bicamada
SystemLabel bicamada
NumberOfAtoms 4
NumberOfSpecies 1
%block ChemicalSpeciesLabel
1 6 C_LDA # Species index, atomic number, species label
%endblock ChemicalSpeciesLabel
LatticeConstant 1.0 Ang
%block LatticeVectors
1.22384691 -2.11932969 0.00000000
2.44723916 5.62061381E-04 0.00000000
0.00000000 0.00000000 30.0000000
%endblock LatticeVectors
K-sampling (alternative specification using kgrid_cutoff)
%block kgrid_Monkhorst_Pack
15 0 0 0.0
0 15 0 0.0
0 0 1 0.0
%endblock kgrid_Monkhorst_Pack
#Atomic coordinates
AtomicCoordinatesFormat Ang
%block AtomicCoordinatesAndAtomicSpecies
0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 1
2.44739113 -1.41257062 0.00000000 1
2.44912297 -1.41157025 $a 1
1.22715986 -0.70437287 $a 1
%endblock AtomicCoordinatesAndAtomicSpecies
Basis set definition
PAO.EnergyShift 500 meV
PAO.SplitNorm 0.2
PAO.BasisSize DZP
#Real space grid
MeshCutoff 200.0 Ry
Convergence of SCF
MaxSCFIterations 0
DM.MixingWeight 0.4
DM.NumberPulay 4
Type of solution (diagon is the default for less than 100 atoms)
SolutionMethod diagon
#Geometrical optimization
MD.TypeOfRun CG
MD.NumCGsteps 0
#MD.MaxCGDispl 0.1 Bohr
#MD.MaxForceTol 0.04d0 eV/Ang
#continuation job
MD.UseSaveCG true
MD.UseSaveXV true
DM.UseSaveDM true
LongOutput true
The “$a” is because the script is changing these values to run several simulations in the search of the optimal structure. My energy curve is like that:
$a Etot (eV)
1.40 -631.562255
1.45 -629.984906
1.50 -628.463349
1.55 -627.018617
1.60 -625.663935
1.65 -624.406879
1.70 -623.251031
1.75 -622.196964
1.80 -621.243233
1.85 -620.386733
1.90 -619.623120
1.95 -618.946846
2.00 -618.351451
2.05 -617.830117
2.10 -617.375531
2.15 -616.980744
2.20 -616.638906
2.25 -616.343980
2.30 -616.090300
2.35 -615.872742
2.40 -615.686828
2.45 -615.528253
2.50 -615.393439
2.55 -615.278859
2.60 -615.181737
2.65 -615.099480
2.70 -615.029843
2.75 -614.971070
2.80 -614.921433
2.85 -614.879697
2.90 -614.844507
2.95 -614.814980
3.00 -614.790273
3.05 -614.769559
3.10 -614.752380
3.15 -614.738040
3.18 -614.730667
3.22 -614.722062
3.26 -614.714667
3.30 -614.708353
3.34 -614.702980
3.38 -614.698405
3.42 -614.694544
3.46 -614.691283
3.50 -614.688525
3.54 -614.686244
3.58 -614.684327
3.62 -614.682712
3.66 -614.681417
3.70 -614.680347
Have I made some mistake in my input or is it safe to assume that the pseudopotential is not good? In that last case, does anyone have a good LDA pseudopotential to share?
Thanks!
Cedric