LAMMPS WWW Site - LAMMPS Documentation - LAMMPS Mailing List Archives
Re: [lammps-users] Fwd: Vashishta Potential vs Al.eam.alloy potential
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lammps-users] Fwd: Vashishta Potential vs Al.eam.alloy potential

From: Steve Plimpton <sjplimp@...24...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:40:58 -0600

The GK method is simply a diagnostic calculation which does
affect the dyanmics.  So I think you are really saying
you cannot run NVE for a long period of time with the
Vashishita potential on the system you've defined.

I suggest you verify that you can reproduce values for
A22O3 in the literature using the potential and a
simple geometry, e.g. a perfect crystal.
There is probably something wrong with
the system you are defining.


On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Zeeshan Ahmed <zeeshan.ahmed@...5589...> wrote:
Dear All,

I am trying to find out solid Al2O3 thermal conductivity at room temperature using GREEN KUBO method. I had built a solid crystal of Al2O3 (1500 molecules) using packmol and once used Vashishta potential and in another code used EAM potential to find the difference in the thermal conductivity with both the potential. When I have used EAM potential, the code runs well although I didn't get the correct thermal conductivity value. But when I ran the code with Vashishta potential I got this error "Lost atoms: original 7500 current 3  (../thermo.cpp:398)" even when I lowered the time step from 0.0001 to 0.000001 in metal units. Please suggest me what should do I change while using Vashishta potential, as this potential best describes the thermal properties of Al2O3. 

I did minimization and then equilibrate with NVT followed by NVE and finally Green Kubo lammps code to determine thermal conductivity. Thanks!

Zeeshan Ahmed
PhD Student (Mechanical Engineering)
Sent from Gmail Mobile

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites,!
lammps-users mailing list