Sample directory adf/e_OH_MetaGGA
A large even-tempered basis set calculation of the atomization energy of OH using various modern GGA and meta-GGA post-SCF energy expressions.
In the Create runs, a large even-tempered basis set is selected for O and H, which should give results closer to the basis set limit than the regular ADF basis sets. For both atoms, a second atomic calculation follows the Create run, in order to enable a comparison to the true atoms, rather than the artificial spherically symmetric atom from the Create run. This is achieved by specifying the keywords
unrestricted charge 0 2 symmetry C(lin) occupations sigma 3 // 3 pi 2 // 0 end
in the case of oxygen. This fixes the proper occupations. The result files of both the Create runs and the atomic correction runs are stored.
In the molecular calculation, the symmetry of the molecule is explicitly broken and the occupations are specified in order to avoid the fractional occupations that ADF would otherwise choose. Although it is not said that such a solution would be inferior, the integer occupation solution is the one which allows direct comparison to literature results obtained with other programs.
One of the new GGA potentials has been specified for the xc potential and the keyword METAGGA implies that a series of GGA and meta-GGA xc energies is to be calculated and compared to those energies from the atomic calculations.
METAGGA symmetry C(lin) xc GGA PBE end
A fairly high numerical integration has been specified. For meta-GGA calculations we do recommend this, at least for the time being, as the numerical stability of the results tends to be somewhat lower than for regular GGA calculations.
The block key ENERGYFRAG
ENERGYFRAG O t21.unr.O H t21.unr.H END
implies that the meta-GGA result must not only be compared to the spherically symmetric results from the Create runs, but also to the non-spherical atoms.
The molecular output file prints the PBE Total Bonding energy as usual (in different energy units).
Then a prints a list of 'Total Bonding Energies' for many different Exc functionals, including PBE. Because the numerical approach to obtain the two PBE results is somewhat different, small differences may occur between the two numbers. You now have an overview of the bonding energies of all (meta)GGA functionals currently implemented in ADF. This should give a good indication of the theoretical error bar or the uncertainty in the xc approximation.
Total Bonding Energy: -0.286127457276205 -7.7859 -179.55 -751.23
TOTAL BONDING ENERGIES FROM VARIOUS XC FUNCTIONALS
with respect to fragments in FRAGMENTS input block
hartree eV kcal/mol kJ/mol
Total Bonding Energy with respect to FRAGMENTS
XC Energy Functional
====================
FR: KCIS-modified [1] = -0.2755742057 -7.4987587362 -172.9254430523 -723.5200549587
FR: KCIS-original [2] = -0.2777894828 -7.5590395194 -174.3155506035 -729.3362649626
FR: PKZB [3] = -0.2815570432 -7.6615600946 -176.6797306630 -739.2279943483
FR: VS98 [4] = -0.3017049511 -8.2098127875 -189.3227350810 -792.1263249228
FR: LDA(VWN) [5] = -0.2887564297 -7.8574654492 -181.1974143810 -758.1299830563
FR: PW91 [6] = -0.2876922977 -7.8285089331 -180.5296614163 -755.3361046473
FR: BLYP [7] = -0.2770745036 -7.5395839361 -173.8668943006 -727.4590869882
FR: BP [8] = -0.2855241909 -7.7695117221 -179.1691537365 -749.6437405057
FR: PBE [9] = -0.2858734106 -7.7790144775 -179.3882924288 -750.5606167957
.....
The same energy comparison is done with respect to the fragments (which most currently be atomic) in the ENERGYFRAG block. These are the numbers which should be comparable to experimental numbers.
Finally, the references for the various Exc functionals are printed in the output file.
XC Energy Functional ==================== EF: KCIS-modified [1] = -0.1713622482 -4.6630059333 -107.5314455812 -449.9115690750 EF: KCIS-original [2] = -0.1701706820 -4.6305817515 -106.7837263654 -446.7831118709 EF: PKZB [3] = -0.1716508948 -4.6708604097 -107.7125740668 -450.6694106602 EF: VS98 [4] = -0.1712676117 -4.6604307410 -107.4720602503 -449.6631008503 EF: LDA(VWN) [5] = -0.1980694328 -5.3897456994 -124.2904587006 -520.0312800855 EF: PW91 [6] = -0.1759694023 -4.7883730257 -110.4224787188 -462.0076517434 EF: BLYP [7] = -0.1748768123 -4.7586421272 -109.7368680765 -459.1390568111 EF: BP [8] = -0.1785853781 -4.8595573769 -112.0640284617 -468.8758958794 EF: PBE [9] = -0.1751227104 -4.7653333576 -109.8911714787 -459.7846622469 ....
Similar calculations can be done to obtain energy differences between different molecules. In that case the ENERGYFRAG keyword is not operational though. No detailed breakdown of the bonding energy is currently available for these new energy functionals. Experience shows that the energy values depend only mildly on the chosen xc functional for the xc potential.
