## Firefly and PC GAMESS-related discussion club

Learn how to ask questions correctly

Re^4: Delocalized coordinates optimization with constrained

Loic Joubert-Doriol
loic.joubert.doriol@gmail.com

Hi,

I changed my input according to the procedures given in the manual but still have the same problem.

I can mention that I have already been able to optimize the geometry in Cartesian coordinates with constrained nuclei positions by using the keyword "IFREEZ" in "STATPT" section.
I changed to delocalized coordinate because I want also to constrain some dihedral angles.
As soon as I started to use "ZMAT" and DLCs, I got the problems that I mentioned in the first message: optimization does not converge and the energy not only decrease.

Kind regards,
Loïc Joubert-Doriol

On Tue Jun 17 '14 0:17am, Alex Granovsky wrote
----------------------------------------------
>Hi,

>did you follow procedures to increase the overall precision
>of calculations as described on page 144 of the most current
>Firefly manual?

>Kind regards,
>Alex Granovsky

>On Mon Jun 16 '14 10:55pm, Loic Joubert-Doriol wrote
>----------------------------------------------------
>>Hi,

>>Yes, this run is a stateaverage MCSCF over 3 states: ground state, and first and second excited states.

>>Here is the part of the input belonging to the MCSCF setup:
>>"
>> \$DRT NMCC=141 NDOC=1 NALP=0 NVAL=2 FORS=.t. \$END
>> \$GUGDIA NSTATE=3 ITERMX=150  \$END
>> \$GUGDM NFLGDM(1)=2, 0, 0    IROOT=1 \$END
>> \$GUGDM2 WSTATE(1)=1, 1, 1   \$END
>> \$GUGEM pack2=.t. \$END
>>"

>>Kind regards,
>>Loïc

>>PS: I also have to optimize geometries on excited states where the stateaverage is essential.
>>
>>
>>On Mon Jun 16 '14 9:34pm, Alex Granovsky wrote
>>----------------------------------------------
>>>Hi,

>>>Is this run a state-averaged MCSCF?

>>>Kind regards,
>>>Alex Granovsky

>>>On Thu Jun 12 '14 7:58pm, Loic Joubert-Doriol wrote
>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>>>Dear users of Firefly,

>>>>I am trying to optimize the geometry of a large molecular system while constraining some atomic positions and dihedral angles at the MCSCF level. The full system comprises two molecules so I also have to include a NONVDW pair of atoms.

>>>>It does not converge at all, the energy and the gradient oscillate.
>>>>It is the first time I am trying doing such optimization and I am wondering if I am using the right combination of keywords so I give them here:
>>>>"
>>>> \$CONTRL
>>>>  SCFTYP=MCSCF  RUNTYP=optimize  MAXIT=150  ICHARG=-1
>>>>  MULT=1  UNITS=angstrom   fstint=.t. gencon=.t. NZVAR=198 EXETYP=run
>>>> \$END
>>>> \$MCSCF
>>>>  CISTEP=GUGA SOSCF=.T. FULLNR=.F. FCORE=.F. istate=1 maxit=100 ntrack=3
>>>>  fors=.t. CHKPOP=.FALSE. acurcy=5d-8 ENGTOL=5.0d-13 MICIT=20
>>>> \$END
>>>> \$TRACK \$END
>>>> \$ZMAT
>>>>  DLC=.TRUE. AUTO=.TRUE. NONVDW(1)=15,60
>>>>  IFZMAT(1)= 3, 6,7,2,17,   3, 7,6,19,18, 3, 5,6,7,2,  3, 8,7,6,19,  3, 7,6,5,10
>>>>  IFZMAT(26)=3, 6,7,8,9,    3, 7,8,9,10,  3, 6,5,10,9, 3, 8,9,10,14, 3, 5,10,9,11
>>>>  IFZMAT(51)=3, 9,10,14,13, 3, 10,9,11,12
>>>>  IFRZAT(1)= 3,15,16,35,43,60,61
>>>>  DLCTOL=1D-7 ORTTOL=1D-7 IFDMOD=0
>>>> \$END
>>>> \$STATPT OPTTOL=0.0001 method=gdiis NSTEP=50 HSSEND=.t. FMAXT=100 \$END
>>>>...
>>>>"

>>>>Has anyone any idea on any wrong keyword combinations I am using and/or if there are ways to solve this problem?

>>>>Thanks in advance for any help.

>>>>Regards,
>>>>Loïc Joubert-Doriol.

Tue Jun 17 '14 5:59pm