-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor neb module 🎷 #386
Conversation
jacksund
commented
Feb 11, 2023
•
edited
Loading
edited
- fixes NEB error handlers #349
- fixes NEB can't find CONTCAR when ionic convergence fails #343
- fixes New workflow for climbing image NEB #340
This PR is a draft and won't work yet, but take a look at this file. That file shows how to build the individual steps for a NEB workflow (bulk relax+energy, endpoint relax+energy, and ci-neb) and then piece them all the vasp steps together into a larger workflow (e.g. "single-path" or "all-paths"). The process is still pretty messy and isn't beginner friendly, but hopefully it works for now. Once v0.13.0 is out, you'll be able to make your own python script that uses this template file, and I'll write a utility function that makes this easier too. For now, let me know what your desired VASP settings are for each step! I'll add them in and merge |
@becca9835 write out the VASP INCAR that you want to use for each:
|
I'm hoping we can do two NEB workflows, one that will run quite quickly (hopefully in a day, just to get a quick barrier) and one more rigorous workflow (for publication, with climbing image). I'm hoping this won't be a ton of extra work, just copying and modifying the INCARs. I'm thinking the quick version won't need any static energy calculations, and could run with just 3 images. @jacksund @scott-materials please give feedback on the two workflows and the specific settings below! Two questions: Should we instead be making 3 workflows, quick, rigorous without CI, rigorous with CI? Should we be setting a U parameter (dynamically, if needed), or do we not need one because we are not calculating electronic structure? ### - quick NEB: ### 1. unitcell relaxation:
### 2. endpoint supercell relaxation:
### 3. NEB for 3 image:
### - rigorous NEB: ### 1. unitcell relaxation:
### 2. unitcell static energy:
### 3. endpoint supercell relaxation:
### 4. endpoint supercell static energy:
### 5. NEB for 5 image:
|
@becca9835 Thanks!! I'll build this into the PR today
I'd vote for only having the two extremes: 1) quick and then 2) rigorous with CI! Anything in between probably won't be used much -- either in exploratory calcs as well as pub-ready ones. We also don't want to fall into the trap of having too many workflows to choose from. This PR doesn't need everything set up too, so just one workflow is good to merge. We can prep alternative settings for the next release and also work with @SWeav02 to move these workflows into the warren_lab app. Once I merge this PR and make a release, I'll send you an example of how to run custom settings (without doing a full PR or waiting for a release).
If you decide to set U dynamically, here's an example of how: And the code/description of how this config is used can be found here: |