| 查看: 2659 | 回复: 11 | ||||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||||
major016木虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
【求助】TD-DFT优化激发态构型后的频率问题 已有7人参与
|
|||
|
小弟用G09中的TD-DFT优化了一些分子（20来个原子）第一激发态的几何构型，输入是：#p opt rb3lyp/6-31G(d,p) TD(nstates=10, root=1, singlet, direct) test 大部分优化都能正常结束，但也有出现这种情况的：You need to solve for more vectors in order to follow this state。 对优化完成的构型接着算频率时也出错了，说输入有问题。 #p opt freq rb3lyp/6-31G(d,p) TD(nstates=10, root=1, singlet, direct) test 有碰到过这些情况的虫友没？希望能给解决一下！谢谢！ [ Last edited by major016 on 2010-4-5 at 15:20 ] |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 Gaussian |
» 猜你喜欢
2026年循环经济功能材料国际会议（ICFMCE 2026）
已经有0人回复
-
2026年第五届电气、电子与信息工程国际会议（ISEEIE 2026）
已经有0人回复
-
物理学I论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有252人回复
-
哈尔滨理工大学物理系招收物理学考研调剂
已经有5人回复
-
0702一志愿吉大B区求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
求调剂
已经有0人回复
-
0702一志愿吉大B区求调剂有论文
已经有0人回复
-
请问还有没有用Latex写文章的小伙伴们？
已经有0人回复
-
光学工程学硕调剂信息
已经有29人回复
-
欢迎加入课题组
已经有0人回复
-
散金币，求好运，祝面上顺利！
已经有53人回复
» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- td做激发态优化出错
已经有19人回复
- TD-DFT激发态优化不收敛
已经有4人回复
- 求助激发态频率计算问题
已经有4人回复
- [求助]：高斯中的CIS是否能够优化开壳层的激发态结构，例如双重态，四重态的激发态
已经有8人回复
- 【求助】关于激发态优化及发射光谱的计算
已经有36人回复
- 【讨论】用GO3做TD-DFT优化激发态怎么弄
已经有20人回复
- 【求助】高斯09优化激发态几何后算频率出错。求教改正方案。
已经有4人回复
- 【求助】比较激发态和基态的能量和几何构型时
已经有15人回复
- 【求助】用TDDFT优化出来激发态之后的布居分析
已经有20人回复
- 【求助】单重激发态的高斯算法
已经有29人回复
- 【求助】Gaussian09 优化激发态出错
已经有8人回复
major016
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 16 (小学生)
- 金币: 2112.6
- 散金: 985
- 红花: 13
- 帖子: 1045
- 在线: 445.9小时
- 虫号: 891614
- 注册: 2009-11-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 金属基复合材料
3楼2010-04-05 15:12:12
jeanie163
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1130
- 散金: 352
- 帖子: 169
- 在线: 151.2小时
- 虫号: 448433
- 注册: 2007-11-01
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 理论和计算化学
2楼2010-04-05 14:23:16
major016
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 16 (小学生)
- 金币: 2112.6
- 散金: 985
- 红花: 13
- 帖子: 1045
- 在线: 445.9小时
- 虫号: 891614
- 注册: 2009-11-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 金属基复合材料
4楼2010-04-06 07:10:31
wuy069
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 20 (小学生)
- 金币: 7921.9
- 散金: 15
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 506
- 在线: 549.1小时
- 虫号: 760723
- 注册: 2009-04-30
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 理论和计算化学
major016(金币+10):非常感谢！ 2010-04-06 10:04
major016(金币+5): 2010-04-12 22:13
major016(金币+5): 2010-04-12 22:13
|
Sobereva(190258442) 11:50:40 前一阵子此群里有人问高斯优化激发态出现No map to state **, you need to resolve more vectors的解决办法，今日CCL上出现了高斯官方回复，建议看看 Sobereva(190258442) 11:50:51 you can try use the last structure to restart the optimization or add the direct options to TDDFT. In the case of "No map to state **, you need to resolve more vectors" messages, this is usually an indication that one did not include enough excited states in the TD or CIS calculation. The "States=N" option to the "TD" or "CIS" keywords tells how many excited states to include in an excited state energy calculation. If this is not specified, the default value will be "States=3". The recommended value is to include a minimum of 2 or 3 more states than the state of interest. Thus, if you want to perform a geometry optimization for excited state 5, for example, I would recommend at least using "States=7" or "States=8". The geometry optimization will be done for one excited state M, selected with "Root=M", and one has to make sure that enough states are included in the CIS or TD expansion by having "States=N" where N is larger than M. It is possible that, at some point during an optimization of an excited state, the order of the excited states changes and the CIS or TD expansion might need to include more states in order to be able to follow correctly the state of interest. This is essentially what that message about including more vectors mean, that is that at that point, the number of states that you originally specified with "States=N" was not enough in order to solve for the state of interest, so a larger number "N" will need to be used for "States=N". Other times, the problem is that the ground state wavefunction becomes unstable, that is one of the states that was an excited at the initial geometry now becomes lower in energy than the state that was the ground state at the initial geometry. This kind of situation, unfortunately, cannot be modeled properly with single determinant expansions such as CIS or TD, and one would need to use CAS in order to be able to deal with the conical intersection or avoided crossing of states. Another thing to note is that one should be much more careful with geometry optimizations on excited states than for the ground state. Typically the energy differences among excited states are smaller than between the ground state and the first excited state. Thus, one can afford to perform larger geometry optimization steps when optimizing the ground state than in the case of optimizing an excited state. A "bad" geometry optimization step in the optimization of the ground state, may take you a bit off track but in following steps the optimization might find the way back and approach the converged structure. In the case of an optimization of an excited state, a "bad" geometry optimization step will also take you off track but, since other electronic states are close in energy, it is possible that at the new geometry the order of the excited states change and now the geometry optimization follows a different electronic state. This is not only a problem because the optimization could be pursuing a different state than the one you were interested in, but also because, if several of these changes occur during a geometry optimization, it may even be hopeless to continue with the optimization because the gradient information and the estimated hessian could be useless (since not all the previous points in the geometry optimization where points from the same potential energy surface). As a first measure to increase the reliability of the geometry optimization of excited states, I recommend to reduce the maximum allowed step size during geometry optimizations. Try "Opt=(MaxStep=10)" to set this value to 0.10 Bohr, or a smaller value if you still have problems. The default value is typically 0.30 Bohr. Reducing the maximum allowed step size will result in the geometry optimization taking more steps to reach convergence than with the default value. This will be true obviously for well-behaved geometry optimizations, but for problematic cases it will be the other way around, i.e. it will take fewer steps (and may even be impossible with the default step size) because it will be easier for the optimizer to follow a particular electronic state if the changes from step to step are not very drastic. |
5楼2010-04-06 07:33:53
