[Pw_forum] Constrained magnetic calculation

Sat Mar 8 21:54:20 CET 2014

Dear Vardha

For the moment in the actual version of pw there is only one lambda which applies to all types of atoms.
I have no idea of the type of systems you are looking at but a target moment of 5 for Fe is just "crazy".
So this is not surprising that you need such large values of lambda to converge towards this solution.
I am even surprised that you managed to get a solution!

Cyrille

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyrille Barreteau
CEA Saclay, IRAMIS, SPCSI, Bat. 462
91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex, FRANCE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
phone:    +33 (0)1 69 08 29 51 / +33 (0)6 47 53 66 52
fax :       +33 (0)1 69 08 84 46
email:     cyrille.barreteau at cea.fr <mailto:cyrille.barreteau at cea.fr>
Web:     http://iramis.cea.fr/Pisp/cyrille.barreteau/
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
De : pw_forum-bounces at pwscf.org [pw_forum-bounces at pwscf.org] de la part de Varadharajan Srinivasan [varadharajan.srinivasan at gmail.com]
Envoyé : samedi 8 mars 2014 20:02
À : PWSCF Forum
Objet : Re: [Pw_forum] Constrained magnetic calculation

Dear Cyrille,

This is what we ended up doing setting all lambdas except the two magnetic ions to zero. However, the constrained moments still seem to converge rather slowly with lambda. I attach the plot below. We are also testing this on a Fe-Cr system. We set the target moments to 5 for Fe and -3 for Cr (antiferromagnetic arrangement). Is there any physical reason why this would happen?

Best,
Vardha

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:31 PM, BARRETEAU Cyrille <cyrille.barreteau at cea.fr<mailto:cyrille.barreteau at cea.fr>> wrote:
In fact it can be very useful to constrain just some atoms and not all of them. We used that option a few years ago when studying the magnetic properties of Cr atoms in a Fe matrix. At that time we did it by hacking ad_bfield.f90. An alternative solution would be to define a different lambda(i) for each type of atom and set lambda(i)=0 for the atom which do not need to be constrained.

regards
Cyrille

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyrille Barreteau
CEA Saclay, IRAMIS, SPCSI, Bat. 462
91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex, FRANCE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
phone:    +33 (0)1 69 08 29 51 / +33 (0)6 47 53 66 52
fax :       +33 (0)1 69 08 84 46
email:     cyrille.barreteau at cea.fr <mailto:cyrille.barreteau at cea.fr>
Web:     http://iramis.cea.fr/Pisp/cyrille.barreteau/
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
De : pw_forum-bounces at pwscf.org<mailto:pw_forum-bounces at pwscf.org> [pw_forum-bounces at pwscf.org<mailto:pw_forum-bounces at pwscf.org>] de la part de Gabriele Sclauzero [gabriele.sclauzero at mat.ethz.ch<mailto:gabriele.sclauzero at mat.ethz.ch>]
Envoyé : mercredi 5 mars 2014 10:38
À : PWSCF Forum
Objet : Re: [Pw_forum] Constrained magnetic calculation

Dear Varadharajan,

    I do not know if it make sense or not in general, anyway this possibility is not available at the moment. All atoms of atomic type i will be constrained to have local magnetization equal to starting_magnetization(i). However, you can try to edit the magnetic constraint subroutine in PW/src/add_bfield.f90 to suit your needs.

Regards

GS
Materials Theory, ETH Zurich

On 03/05/2014 05:25 AM, Varadharajan Srinivasan wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

To add to Paresh's question is it possible (and does it make sense) to constrain the magnetisation of only a few atoms and not the others? While the target here seems to be atoms 3 and 4 the other atoms are being made to pay the price so to speak.

One option, in the present framework, is to constrain the values of magnetisation of all other atoms to their respective lambda=0 values. Could this speed up the convergence with lambda?

Thanks,
Vardha.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Gabriele Sclauzero <gabriele.sclauzero at mat.ethz.ch<mailto:gabriele.sclauzero at mat.ethz.ch>> wrote:

What about the evolution of the constrained magnetization?
(Please also make sure that the values specified in starting_magnetization make sense, as suggested by L. Paulatto Sir).

My suggestion was to vary lambda in small steps (say 0.5). I'm surprised that you managed to converge the calculation with such high lambda values.

Anyway, the constrain energy looks way too large, your system is probably still far from the target.

GS

On 03/04/2014 01:57 PM, paresh rout wrote:
Respected Sclauzero   sir,
  Thanks for your reply. According to your suggestion, I varied my Lambda value from 0,5,.......150 ry. Although  calculated constrained energy are decreasing but upto 150 ry the constrained energy and the estimated scf accuracy are not the same order. Here I am providing my constrained energy with various lambda value.

Lambda      Constraint_Energy
0           0.00000000
5           36.93411685
10          69.54815816
15          6.65653915   estimated scf accuracy    <          7.6E-13 Ry
20          7.88546052
25          8.88385707
30          9.71513061
35          10.42697250
40          11.05006563
45          11.60072229
50          12.08887057
70          13.54966033
80          14.05546257
90          14.45159513
100         14.75974550
110         14.99680383
120         15.17624003
130         15.30876396
140         15.40310437         estimated scf accuracy    <          9.9E-13 Ry
150         15.46632278          estimated scf accuracy    <          9.9E-13 Ry

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Sclauzero Gabriele <gabriele.sclauzero at mat.ethz.ch<mailto:gabriele.sclauzero at mat.ethz.ch>> wrote:
Dear Paresh,

     in my understanding you should start with a very small lambda value (e.g. 0.1), make sure the calculation has converged (not always trivial), then restart with a larger value.
It is important to tune the steps by which you increase lambda. Increasing it by steps of 5 seems too much to me, I would suggest you to try much smaller steps, say between 0.1 and 0.5.

There are two reasons why the energy increases: the first is because you are constraining your system out of its ground state, but that's exactly what one would expect. The other is the contribution from the penalty energy (E_constrain, it should be printed after each scf step), which is used to impose the constraint.
An important thing is that this energy term is not physical and becomes negligible once your system reaches the target state.Therefore one should monitor this constraint energy, together with the constrained quantity, and make sure it goes to zero at some point.

Once lambda is large enough and you reached the targeted state, E_constrain should be negligible w.r.t. the total energy and of the same order of the estimated scf accuracy. From that point on, the energy should not change if you further increase lambda, because your system fulfills (almost) exactly the constraint, so that E_constrain should stay to a very low value.

HTH

GS

_______________________________________________
Pw_forum mailing list
Pw_forum at pwscf.org<mailto:Pw_forum at pwscf.org>
http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quantum-espresso.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140308/0681a207/attachment.html>