CO on Cu using DFT+U

Queries about input and output files, running specific calculations, etc.


Moderators: Global Moderator, Moderator

Post Reply
Message
Author
kpkuhl
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:07 pm

CO on Cu using DFT+U

#1 Post by kpkuhl » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:04 pm

Hi,

I've would like to calculate CO adsorbtion energy to Cu using DFT+U as they did in the paper M. Gajdosˇ, J. Hafner / Surface Science 590 (2005) 117–126 in order to get the correct site preference and get close to experimentally known values. However, I'm having some trouble reproducing their work. I'm using vasp 4.6. I get an incorrect site preference and much lower HOMO-LUMO gap when I use U=1.25 (the authors report setting U to 1.25 eV). To get close to the HOMO-LUMO gap that they report I need to do U=5. Are the units of U eV, so that this is a unit problem? Or are there some othere parameters I'm missing? I'm using an 8x8x8 kpoints grid, pw91 POTCARS, and POSCAR and INCAR as follows:

INCAR:

general:
SYSTEM = CO
ISTART = 0
ICHARG = 2
PREC = High
LREAL = FALSE
IDIPOL=3

Electronic Relaxation:
ISMEAR = 2
SIGMA = 0.1
ENCUT = 450
GGA=91

Ionic Relaxation:
IBRION = 2
NSW = 100
LDAU=TRUE
LDAUTYPE=2
LDAUL=1 1
LDAUU=1.25 1.25
LDAJJ=0 0
VOSKOWN=1

POSCAR:

CO
1.00
10.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 10.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 10.0
1 1
Direct
0 0 .444
0 0 .556


If I could get any advice on how to better reproduce this paper, that would be great. Thanks.

Kendra
Last edited by kpkuhl on Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

alex
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:21 pm
License Nr.: 5-67
Location: Germany

CO on Cu using DFT+U

#2 Post by alex » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:56 pm

They report a gap for a metal? Are you sure? Even if it is a metal surface, it stays metallic (no gap).

Do you speak about CO only eventually?

Alex
Last edited by alex on Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kpkuhl
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:07 pm

CO on Cu using DFT+U

#3 Post by kpkuhl » Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:37 am

Sorry to be unclear above; I'm referring to the HOMO-LUMO gap in the CO molecule and the problems with site preference are calculating CO adsorbed on the metal surface. Since getting the correct site preference depends on getting the HOMO-LUMO gap of CO correct, I've been trying to get that part of the calculation to work.
Last edited by kpkuhl on Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

admin
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2921
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:18 am
License Nr.: 458

CO on Cu using DFT+U

#4 Post by admin » Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:21 pm

please have a look at Stroppa, Termentzidis, Paier, Kresse and Hafner, PRB 76, 195440 (2007): you need PBE0 or HSE (screended exact exchange contributions) potentials (as included in vasp.5) to obtain correct site preferences of CO on Cu.
the DFT+U method restricted to certain MOs is not included in the standard implementations of vasp.
Last edited by admin on Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kpkuhl
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:07 pm

CO on Cu using DFT+U

#5 Post by kpkuhl » Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:41 pm

Right now I am interested in restricting the simulations to a purely DFT+U formalisms and want to avoid the higher level exchange-correlation functionals that are in vasp5. That said, I am confused by what you mean when you say that the current implementation of DFT+U (vasp 4.6) is restricted to certain MOs. This is definitely not explained well in the vasp manual where it clearly states that one can specify LDAUL to account for different MOs for different atoms. Is this not the case? Also, the units are not given for the U parameter. I assumed they were in eV, but find that I need to include a U value that is approximately 4 times larger than the one given in the Gajdos and Hafner 2005 paper (regardless of whether I ran with or without spin). Please advise on how to properly use DFT+U. Thanks, Kendra
Last edited by kpkuhl on Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply