internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

Problems running VASP: crashes, internal errors, "wrong" results.


Moderators: Global Moderator, Moderator

Post Reply
Message
Author
Marco_A_Villena
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2024 9:07 am

internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#1 Post by Marco_A_Villena » Thu Jul 17, 2025 2:43 pm

Hi, I'm getting the following error/bug

internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969
RSPHER: internal ERROR: 33 -43 2 1

I'm using version 6.5.0

This is the setting files + some of the output files includding the error message in "output.log" file:

bug_report.zip

I hope you can help me with this issue.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

christopher_sheldon1
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:36 pm

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#2 Post by christopher_sheldon1 » Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:40 pm

Dear Marco,

Thank you for your report. I will try to repeat the calculation to work out what is going on. Your system is quite large. If you have a minimal reproducible example, this would help to solve the problem quicker.

Best wishes,

Chris


Marco_A_Villena
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2024 9:07 am

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#3 Post by Marco_A_Villena » Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:48 pm

Dear Chris,

Thank you for helping me!

Unfortunately, I don't have a smaller version of this system/simulation. However, I have the same system using gold instead of copper as the metal atom. In this case, the simulation works. If it's helpful for you, I could share the files.

Best regards,
Marco A.


christopher_sheldon1
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:36 pm

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#4 Post by christopher_sheldon1 » Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:55 pm

Hi Marco,

An example using copper would be helpful. Could you include the OUTCAR along with the input files?

Many thanks,

Chris


Marco_A_Villena
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2024 9:07 am

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#5 Post by Marco_A_Villena » Mon Jul 21, 2025 3:04 pm

Hi Chris,

This is the example using copper. This system is the same, but changing the metal atom.

Bug_report_2.zip

Best regards,
Marco A. Villena

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

christopher_sheldon1
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:36 pm

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#6 Post by christopher_sheldon1 » Mon Jul 21, 2025 3:09 pm

Thank you, Marco. I'll compare them once my calculation using the Au atom has finished and get back to you then.

Best,

Chris


christopher_sheldon1
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:36 pm

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#7 Post by christopher_sheldon1 » Tue Jul 29, 2025 6:11 am

Hi Marco,

Sorry for the slow reply, I was testing a few different things. What you see is an issue with the Brent algorithm in VASP. In some difficult cases, it fails. We are working to improve this.

As a workaround, you can try to tighten the energetic convergence criterion EDIFF=1E-5 or 1E-6. This will ensure that the calculation does not terminate so abruptly.

I think it would also be worth considering whether the dispersion correction that you want to use is suitable. The D3 functional tends to overbind for metal ions. When I switched off the dispersion correction, the calculation converged in 39 steps. IVDW=202 (the many-body dispersion, MBD), will take more time but would likely improve the situation. dDsC (IVDW=4) is also a possibility for metals.

Let me know if this helps or if you've got any follow-up questions.

Best wishes,

Chris


Marco_A_Villena
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2024 9:07 am

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#8 Post by Marco_A_Villena » Tue Jul 29, 2025 9:57 am

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your suggestions. I’ll try to decrease the EDIFF.

In this situation, I’m using D3 because the bottom part of the system is a 2D material, so I think that I should keep it. However, any suggestions in this sense are welcome.

Best regards,
Marco A.


christopher_sheldon1
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:36 pm

Re: internal error in: nonlr.F at line: 969

#9 Post by christopher_sheldon1 » Tue Jul 29, 2025 11:59 am

Okay, glad I could help. I should make clear that all the dispersion corrections (e.g., dDsC, MBD) work for non-metals, so they would be appropriate for your system.

Let me know if EDIFF makes the difference.

Best wishes,

Chris


Post Reply