Multiwfn official website: //www.umsyar.com/multiwfn. Multiwfn forum in Chinese: http://bbs.keinsci.com/wfn
You are not logged in.
Dear Tian,
Many thanks for your nice and professional comments.
Best regards,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Your highly kind attention to prompt reply with much valuable and informative comments is extremely appreciated. Thank you very very much for the valuable time you so kindly assigned to my post.
Given your comments, do you have any other solutions to analyze Pauli repulsion between fragments in a given TS structure?
In addition, you have mentioned option 4 of CDA can directly give the overlap matrix. Isn't it necessary to first find the fragments' orbitals participating in the Pauli repulsion? Indeed, we should first find which fragment orbitals and in which complex orbital repeal each other due to Pauli repulsion.
Please also let me state that you cod "GauIRC2xyz" immediately crashes if the IRC.log file includes a TS comprising of three fragments (diene+dienophile+catalyst). Could you please change your code to be appropriate for three fragments?
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
As you nicely did guide me to use CDA for obtaining the value of Pauli repulsion between occupied orbitals of two interacting fragments (and, evaluating corresponding overlap), I did follow the below steps one-by-one. Please, if possible, let me know if my approach is quite correct:
1- The TS structure is fully optimized using, for instance, M062X/def2TZVPP level (TS includes two interacting fragments f1 and f2 which include some very heavy atoms such as Sn and, thus, I employed this basis set so that pseudo potentials are applied for such atoms).
2- After full optimization of TS, I changed number of atoms so that the electron-donor fragment (f1) to be the first fragment and electron-acceptor (f2) to be the second fragment.
3- Taking fully optimized TS structure, a SP is performed using "M062X/def2TZVPP nosymm pop=full iop(3/33=1)" keywords and, generated "chk" file is converted into "fch".
4- Taking the fully optimized structure of TS (whose atom numbering has been changed as described), f1 and f2 will be generated following a SP over each fragment using "M062X/def2-TZVPP nosymm pop=full" keywords and, "chk" files are converted into "fch" ones.
5-Multiwfn boots up, and the "fch" file of TS is loaded. Then 16 is chosen. I also enter 2 as there are two fragments. Then, the "fch" file of f1 (electron-donor) and "fch" file of f2 will be entered, respectively. The below data are presented:
Orb. Occ. d b d - b r
1 2.000000 -0.000003 0.000025 -0.000029 0.000014
2 2.000000 -0.000005 -0.000212 0.000206 -0.000071
3 2.000000 -0.000004 -0.000086 0.000082 -0.000026
4 2.000000 0.000445 -0.000000 0.000445 0.000024
5 2.000000 0.000304 -0.000001 0.000305 0.000043
6 2.000000 -0.000006 -0.000178 0.000171 -0.000065
7 2.000000 -0.000114 -0.001880 0.001766 0.022417
8 2.000000 0.005204 0.000709 0.004495 0.065189
9 2.000000 0.000370 0.002808 -0.002438 -0.003814
10 2.000000 -0.001802 -0.008178 0.006376 -0.011103
11 2.000000 0.003259 0.002135 0.001124 0.106547
12 2.000000 -0.005901 -0.000438 -0.005464 -0.101433
13 2.000000 -0.001358 -0.002066 0.000708 0.041290
14 2.000000 0.002171 -0.000691 0.002862 0.006158
15 2.000000 -0.001241 -0.001562 0.000321 -0.032240
16 2.000000 0.000064 0.002083 -0.002020 0.018551
17 2.000000 0.003422 -0.001551 0.004973 0.128120
18 2.000000 0.001397 -0.000052 0.001449 0.025455
19 2.000000 0.008062 -0.001752 0.009813 -0.089066
20 2.000000 0.018289 0.016942 0.001347 -0.159743
21 2.000000 0.051780 -0.002916 0.054697 -0.403971
22 2.000000 -0.000894 0.062648 -0.063542 -0.141167
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum: 44.000000 0.083437 0.065789 0.017649 -0.528892
As can be seen, the last four MO orbitals of complex (TS), 19-22, display a significant negative "r" value. So, one can conclude that the fragments orbitals participating in these MOs are responsible for the Pauli repulsion. Consequently, we should first decompose MOs 19-22 to the fragments orbitals. Now, we should select option "6, Decompose complex orbital contribution to CDA" to find which fragments orbital participate in the formation of MO 19. Once we select 6 followed by 19, and enter a threshold value such as 0.005, the following information is displayed:
Occupation number of orbital 19 of the complex: 2.00000000
FragA Orb(Occ.) FragB Orb(Occ.) d b d - b r
6( 2.0000) 7( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.009978
6( 2.0000) 9( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.026962
6( 2.0000) 10( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.014043
6( 2.0000) 12( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.021881
7( 2.0000) 7( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.007323
7( 2.0000) 9( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.005278
7( 2.0000) 12( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.007499
7( 2.0000) 13( 2.0000) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -0.008777
Among NEGATIVE "r" values, the MOST NEGATIVE "r" is -0.026962 associated with a Pauli repulsion between orbital 6 of f1 and orbital 9 of f2. If we again repeat this calculation for orbitals 20, 21, 22 of TS and look for the most negative "r" value, we finally find that:
MO-19----> O-6_f1+O-9_f2
MO-20----> O-7_f1+O-13_f2
MO-21----> O-7_f1+O-13_f2
MO-22----> O-7_f1+O-15_f2
A simple visualization of the f1-orbitals (f1.fch is loaded into gview) one can see that orbitals 6 and 7 in f1 are HOMO-1 and HOM, respectively. These two orbitals are degenerate located over pi-orbitals of C-C triple bond of acetylene. On the other hand, a simple visualization of the f2-orbitals (f2.fch is loaded into gview), one can see that orbitals 9, 13, and 15 f2 are HOMO-6, HOMO-2, and HOMO, respectively. We should compute the value of S(i,j), the overlap integral, between:
orbital 6 of f1 and orbital 9 of f2
and
orbital 7 of f1 and each of orbitals 13 and 15 of f2.
To compute S(i,j) for f1 orbitals and f2 orbitals mentioned above, we should initially save TS.fch, f1.fch, and f2.fch as gaussian input files (gjf). Then, a SP is performed over TS.gjf using "M062X/def2TZVPP nosymm guess(save,only pop=none)" keywords and, corresponding chk file is converted into fch. A SP is also performed over each of f1.gjf and f2.gjf using "M062X/def2TZVPP nosymm" keywords and generated chk files are converted into fch ones. Now, Multiwfn boots up and TS.fch (newly generated as explained) is loaded. Then we select 100 followed by 15. The f1.fch and f2.fch is loaded, respectively and finally we enter 6,9. Then, we generate "whole overlap integral matrix to ovlpint.txt in current folder". From this file, one can see that:
S(6,9)= 0.056
S(7,13)= -0.126
S(7,15)= -0.031
We should consider the absolute value for negative S(I,j). Consequently, the Pauli repulsion between fragments orbitals at the TS structure increases as:
7,15<6,9<7,13
Please accept my highest apology for such a lengthy explanation.
Best Regards,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Many many thanks for your highly valuable guidance.
Best regards,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
If possible and you kindly let me, I am going to repecfully ask a question.
Please, first, let me present a short explanation about what I am looking for. Consider a given Diels-Alder reaction which is further catalyzed with a catalyst. Suppose our analyses reveal that the catalyzed reaction is preferred over the uncatalyzed reaction due to the least Puli repulsion in the TS associated with the catalyzed reaction (I have performed an EDA such as sobEDA over both TSs to find this matter). Now, I want to find the appropriate occupied fragments orbitals at the TS structure, which are responsible for Pauli repulsion (for example HOMO-n to HOMO from one fragment vs. HOMO-m to HOMO of the other fragment). I do not know how Multiwfn able to perform such a nice analysis. In addition, I want to compute the overlap (S_i,j) between occupied orbitals of two fragments which are responsible for the most Pauli repulsion (If, for example, we can sort the pair orbitals responsibiling for the to 10 values of Pauli repulsion, S(I,j) needs to be computed in these top 10 interactions).
While I hope you kindly accept my highest apology for taking your valuable time with explanations, I would be highly grateful if you guide me to know how such a purpose can be reached by Multiwfn.
Best regards,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Too many thanks for your kind attention and the highly valuable, informative, and professional suggestion.
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Many thanks for your kind attention and, for guiding me with your highly valuable confirmation.
Please, also, let me ask one more question. In some cases, such as for TeHF compound in which the presence of a sigma-hole along the extension of the Te-F bond is expected, drawing isosurface of Laplacian of Rho (with isovalue= 0, namely the reactive surface) does not show a hole. On the other hand, this sigma-hole can be seen when isovalue is increased to 0.001 (a value slightly greater than zero). Could you please let me know why?
As another case, SnH3F could be mentioned. For this compound, the emergence of an expected hole along the Sn-F bond can never be satisfied using ANY value as isosurface for Laplacian of Rho. Such cases made me quite confused. Please let me know why some cases fail to present an expected sigma-hole over the Laplacian isosurface. I tried several times to attach "SnH3F.fch" file generated at M06-2X-D3(0)/def2-TZVPP level but, all tries failed! Using Multiwfn and VMD, I could not see the sigma-hole in this compound at any isovalue of Laplacian of Rho!
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
I hope you are doing well. Please, if possible, kindly let me ask you a question about Sigme- or Pi-hole characterization with the Laplacian of Rho.
Is it true to state that "a sigma-hole or a pi-hole is always characterized with the emergence of a hole on the isosurface of the Laplacian of Rho when an isovalue of zero is considered"?
In advance, thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Many thanks for your highly valuable and informative comments.
Interestingly, as you have nicely recommended, the value of electrostatic interactions is quite consistent with the value of V_s,max calculated for heavy atoms in LAs.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Please, if possible, let me respectfully ask you a question regarding some unexplainable results in EDA I have recently encountered.
Please suppose 1,3-Aza Diene (A), including a sp2 hybridized nitrogen atom in position 2, interacts with some Lewis acids leading to inter-molecular tetrel-, pnictogen-, chalcogen-, and halogen-bound complexes (these LAs are SnH3F, SbH2F, TeHF, and FI all include a sigma-hole in the extension of heavy atom-F bond). These complexes participate in an Aza-Diles-Alder reaction toward a given dienophile (let's to be acetylene).
My energy decomposition energy analysis (EDA) indicates that electrostatic interaction is the main predominant player in stabilizing complexes considered. To explore the origin of the electrostatic interaction predominance, I calculated the atomic charge (Hirshfeld, NPA, VDD) on the heavy atoms of LAs. Unfortunately, computed atomic charges are not consistent with the values of electrostatic interactions. Indeed, while the positive charge on the heavy atoms of LAs decreases (becomes less positive) the electrostatic interaction between heavy atoms in LAs and nitrogen of Aza Diene increases (becomes more negative or stabilizing).
If possible, please let me know how you explain this strange and inconsistent observation.
In advance, please accept my highest gratitude for your kind attention to guiding me with your professional and golden comments and, please excuse me for bothering you.
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Thank you very much.
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Many thanks for your much valuable comments.
If one wants to compare results of the gas phase and those of the solution, a quite same isovalue should be employed. In this sense, it seems isovalue= 0.001 a.u. to be suitable for both the gas and solution phase. Do you agree?
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
In the above replies you indicated:
"the Bader's definition of molecular vdW surface (in gas phase) corresponds to isosurface of electron density with isovalue of 0.001 a.u.;.....". If possible, please let me know what is the suitable isovalue for the vdW electron density in the presence of a desirable solvent.
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Thank you very very much.
Best regards,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Too many thanks for your highly valuable and determining agreement and confirmation. In light of your highly valuable opinion, now I am ensured that my approach does not include any problem.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Please accept my highest and deepest gratitude for the highly valuable time, energy, and patience you kindly spent to guide me in the best possible manner.
Following your instruction I could draw what I was looking for.
If possible, please let me ask a conceptual question. Considering my system I used "cub Laplacian 0.0" command in the VMD main windows so that the zero value is adjusted for both positive and negative parts of the Laplacian isosurface. As you can see in the presented picture, the selected BCP is located outside the zero isovalue of Laplacian. Consequently, it means the Laplacian at this BCP should be positive. Moreover, if a given BCP is located inside the zero isosurface of Laplacian (BCP is surrounded by Laplacian isosurface whose isovalue is zero), it means that Laplacian at that point should be negative. Please, if possible, let me know if my interpretations about the sign of Laplacian are reasonable based on how a BCP is located inside or outside of isosurface.
Dear Tian,
It is well known that M06-2X functional has already been somewhat corrected during parametrization. So, to include dispersion corrections into this functional, one just needs to use "em=gd3". Please let me know has M05-2X also already been corrected to some extent during parametrization. If so, to include dispersion corrections, this functional also needs "em=gd3" keyword. Do you agree and confirm this statement?
In addition, I am computing solvation energy for a set of compounds at M05-2X/6-31G(d) level together with SMD solvation model as recommended by Truhlar and, as you also confirmed in one of your highly valuable blog articles. Please let me know if there are any problems regarding the accuracy of these calculations.
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Too many thanks for your so valuable guidance. But please let me state that I want to do visualization using a third party. Indeed, I want to generate corresponding "cub" files and, then, using "Cub" script in the VMD to reach very nice and high quality isosurface with BCPs. Could you please guide me to know how I can reach this purpose?
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Please let me ask a question regarding an issue I saw in an interesting article.
Please suppose one wants to draw BCPs together with the Laplacian isosurface exactly as presented in the attached picture.
As you can see, the Laplacian isosurface corresponding to isovalue 0.00 (namely reactive surface) and also BCPs are portrayed together. If possible, please let me know how one can reach such a picture using Multiwfn. Indeed, while I know how to draw Laplacian isosurface (5 Output and plot specific property within a spatial region and...), I do not know how to include BCPs at the same time.
Dear Tian,
Many thanks for your kind attention to prompt reply with highly valuable guidance.
So, given your nice comment, File 1 should be correct.
Moreover, I asked this question on the PSI4 forum but, unfortunately, and the same as other questions I did not receive any reply!
I also performed many searches on the net to find an appropriate response. Please be aware that the only valid file I could find regarding this question is "https://github.com/psi4/psi4/blob/maste … /input.dat". Interestingly, in quite agreement with your highly valuable recommendation, this file also uses "def2-SVP-ri" basis set as the orbital basis set is also "def2-SVP".
Once again, too many thanks.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
I hope you are doing well and, like always, kindly let me ask a question on my problem about SAPT analysis.
Please suppose one wants to perform SAPT analysis on a dimer, including heavy elements, for which using "def2" bases is mandatory. Let us take "def2-TZVPP" as the desirable basis set for such a give analysis.
It seems in the recent versions of PSI4 one should use "def2-universal-jkfit" instead of "def2-TZVPP-jkfit". The question is:
Is it also mandatory to employ "def2-universal-ri" instead of "def2-tzvpp-ri"? In other words, which of the below input files are reasonable and should be used (As I checked, the results are somewhat different:
File 1:
memory 55 gb
molecule {
0 1
C -1.56109100 -1.20061800 -0.00000400
C -0.17334400 -1.20786600 0.00002200
C 0.50607200 -0.00007600 0.00002300
C -0.17333700 1.20786200 0.00001700
C -1.56097000 1.20068700 -0.00000300
C -2.25745700 0.00000900 -0.00001500
H -2.09690700 -2.13988300 -0.00002400
H 0.37960100 -2.13607100 0.00000800
H 0.37980500 2.13594700 0.00001000
H -2.09684600 2.13992100 -0.00001000
H -3.33850200 0.00010300 -0.00001600
Cl 2.24080100 0.00000000 -0.00001200
--
2 1
Hg -0.77409920 -0.36639646 -1.52722807
units angstrom
no_reorient
symmetry c1
}
set {
basis def2-tzvpp
df_basis_scf def2-universal-jkfit
df_basis_sapt def2-tzvpp-ri
scf_type DF
guess sad
freeze_core True
}
set_num_threads(8)
energy('sapt2')
/////////////////////////////////////
File 2:
memory 55 gb
molecule {
0 1
C -1.56109100 -1.20061800 -0.00000400
C -0.17334400 -1.20786600 0.00002200
C 0.50607200 -0.00007600 0.00002300
C -0.17333700 1.20786200 0.00001700
C -1.56097000 1.20068700 -0.00000300
C -2.25745700 0.00000900 -0.00001500
H -2.09690700 -2.13988300 -0.00002400
H 0.37960100 -2.13607100 0.00000800
H 0.37980500 2.13594700 0.00001000
H -2.09684600 2.13992100 -0.00001000
H -3.33850200 0.00010300 -0.00001600
Cl 2.24080100 0.00000000 -0.00001200
--
2 1
Hg -0.77409920 -0.36639646 -1.52722807
units angstrom
no_reorient
symmetry c1
}
set {
basis def2-tzvpp
df_basis_scf def2-universal-jkfit
df_basis_sapt universal-ri
scf_type DF
guess sad
freeze_core True
}
set_num_threads(8)
energy('sapt2')
//////////////////////////////////////////////
In advance, your highly valuable guidance is very appreciated and, please excuse me for bothering you.
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Your very valuable guidance is highly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Thank you very very much for, like always, your highly valuable confirmation.
Please, if possible, let me request a reference regarding the reasonableness and valuability of the M06-2X/6-31G(d) level for the calculation of solvation energy.
Indeed, I need a reference (to be cited in the manuscript) in which the specific performance of the SMD solvation model as well as M06-2X/6-31G(d) level for the computation of solvation energy is addressed. I do not know whether the original SMD paper of Truhlar is sufficient or if there are some more appropriate references I am not aware of.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
I hope you are doing well and all goes best with you.
If you kindly let me, I am respectfully going to ask a question regarding computation of salvation energy, Delta_E_solvation.
You know much better than me that Prof. "Truhlar" recommended using M06-2X/6-31G(d) computational level in conjunction with the SMD solvation model to compute solvation energy for chemical compounds in a very accurate manner whose results are very close to the experimental values.
Please suppose a compound including some elements for which 6-31G(d) basis set is not defined. In such cases, as you recommended in the long past (if I am not wrong), the def2-SV(P) could safely be used instead of 6-31G(d) basis hoping results are still satisfactory. Do you quite confirm the reasonableness of this statement?
In advance, your kind attention is highly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Thank you very very much.
Interestingly, I completely understood your very valuable code, Molclus, and now I can work with this nice code perfectly.
It is also very surprising that the task is aborted if memory to be much more than is needed. Commonly, the low amount of memory encounters problem not the high amount!
Sincerely yours,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Thank you very much for your prompt reply with informative comments.
I also have seen such scripts in the Orca 6 tutorials (https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.0/tut … rapol.html) but, at least for me, they are not very clear. And, I think "Extrapolate" keyword is really so nice and practically useful. If possible, please let me share with you two issues: 1) Can I install both older and newer versions together on the same system? Indeed, while the older version worked best for some keywords, the newer version provides some very nice features such as "conformed search".
2) Regarding the problem mentioned, I performed exactly the same calculation but on a system including fewer atoms, and, the task was terminated normally. Given that I used 8 processors any of which with 6000MB of ram, it seems that 8*6000=48GB exceeded the total AVAILABLE ram and, the task has been aborted in the first calculation. Do you agree with me?
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
If possible, please let me state that I have frequently faced problems since upgrading my Orca 5.0.3 to 6.0.1; I have never encountered such problems with the older version.
Please let me ask a question regarding a new problem. The below Orca task was ran:
***********************************************************************************************************************
! ExtrapolateEP2(3/4,def2,MP2) tightSCF noautostart miniprint
%pal nprocs 8 end
%maxcore 6000
* xyz 0 1
C -3.00886523 -0.60110479 0.00000305
H -3.83275726 0.09558074 0.00003101
H -3.13625859 -1.67101162 -0.00011453
N -1.81764115 -0.14353739 0.00008421
H -0.98978097 -0.78273714 -0.00002296
O -1.48821106 1.09766974 0.00016013
C 1.46382272 -0.12319892 -0.00021950
O 0.71189603 -1.08884815 -0.00013887
C 2.95709267 -0.26671500 0.00015158
H 3.36553743 0.23708253 -0.87460156
H 3.36370189 0.22895946 0.88045529
H 3.23148130 -1.31574290 -0.00408829
O 1.05435101 1.11577850 -0.00024573
H 0.02497543 1.16194217 -0.00006346
*
$new_job
! ExtrapolateEP2(3/4,def2,MP2) tightSCF noautostart miniprint Pmodel
%pal nprocs 8 end
%maxcore 6000
* xyz 0 1
C -3.00886523 -0.60110479 0.00000305
H -3.83275726 0.09558074 0.00003101
H -3.13625859 -1.67101162 -0.00011453
N -1.81764115 -0.14353739 0.00008421
H -0.98978097 -0.78273714 -0.00002296
O -1.48821106 1.09766974 0.00016013
C : 1.46382272 -0.12319892 -0.00021950
O : 0.71189603 -1.08884815 -0.00013887
C : 2.95709267 -0.26671500 0.00015158
H : 3.36553743 0.23708253 -0.87460156
H : 3.36370189 0.22895946 0.88045529
H : 3.23148130 -1.31574290 -0.00408829
O : 1.05435101 1.11577850 -0.00024573
H : 0.02497543 1.16194217 -0.00006346
*
$new_job
! ExtrapolateEP2(3/4,def2,MP2) tightSCF noautostart miniprint Pmodel
%pal nprocs 8 end
%maxcore 6000
* xyz 0 1
C : -3.00886523 -0.60110479 0.00000305
H : -3.83275726 0.09558074 0.00003101
H : -3.13625859 -1.67101162 -0.00011453
N : -1.81764115 -0.14353739 0.00008421
H : -0.98978097 -0.78273714 -0.00002296
O : -1.48821106 1.09766974 0.00016013
C 1.46382272 -0.12319892 -0.00021950
O 0.71189603 -1.08884815 -0.00013887
C 2.95709267 -0.26671500 0.00015158
H 3.36553743 0.23708253 -0.87460156
H 3.36370189 0.22895946 0.88045529
H 3.23148130 -1.31574290 -0.00408829
O 1.05435101 1.11577850 -0.00024573
H 0.02497543 1.16194217 -0.00006346
*
$new_job
! ExtrapolateEP2(3/4,def2,MP2) tightSCF noautostart miniprint Pmodel
%pal nprocs 8 end
%maxcore 6000
* xyz 0 1
C -3.00886523 -0.60110479 0.00000305
H -3.83275726 0.09558074 0.00003101
H -3.13625859 -1.67101162 -0.00011453
N -1.81764115 -0.14353739 0.00008421
H -0.98978097 -0.78273714 -0.00002296
O -1.48821106 1.09766974 0.00016013
*
$new_job
! ExtrapolateEP2(3/4,def2,MP2) tightSCF noautostart miniprint Pmodel
%pal nprocs 8 end
%maxcore 6000
* xyz 0 1
C 1.46382272 -0.12319892 -0.00021950
O 0.71189603 -1.08884815 -0.00013887
C 2.95709267 -0.26671500 0.00015158
H 3.36553743 0.23708253 -0.87460156
H 3.36370189 0.22895946 0.88045529
H 3.23148130 -1.31574290 -0.00408829
O 1.05435101 1.11577850 -0.00024573
H 0.02497543 1.16194217 -0.00006346
*
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
But after a long time, the task was terminated and the below message was displayed on the screen:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary job terminated normally, but 1 process returned
a non-zero exit code. Per user-direction, the job has been aborted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mpirun noticed that process rank 2 with PID 0 on node saeed exited on signal 9 (Killed).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[file orca_tools/qcmsg.cpp, line 394]:
.... aborting the run
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Moreover, at the bottom of the output file, one can see:
Maximum memory used throughout the entire LEANSCF-calculation: 57.2 MB
************************************************************
* Program running with 8 parallel MPI-processes *
* working on a common directory *
************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORCA MP2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freezing NCore=14 chemical core electrons
----------
MP2 ENERGY (disk based algorithm)
----------
Dimension of the basis ... 609
Memory devoted to MP2 ... 6000 MB
Data format for buffers ... DOUBLE
Compression type for matrix containers ... UNCOMPRESSED
-------------------------
SHARK HALF TRANSFORMATION (Exchange order)
-------------------------
Number of basis functions ... 609
Number of operators ... 1
Operator 0: 7- 27 (p-index in (p*|q*))
Operator 0: 7- 27 (q-index in (p*|q*)
Integral generator used ... SHARK
Contraction scheme used ... SEGMENTED CONTRACTION
MaxCore in resort ... 6000 MB
Half transformed integrals for op= 0 ... R1_S.SHARK_MNPQ0.tmp
Resorted half transformed integrals ... R1_S.KAO_aa.tmp
ORCA finished by error termination in MP2
Calling Command: mpirun -np 8 /home/saeed/orca-6.0.1/orca_mp2_mpi R1_S.mp2inp.tmp R1_S
[file orca_tools/qcmsg.cpp, line 394]:
.... aborting the run
Please, if possible and like always, make me benefit of your highest kindness and let me know how I can resolve this problem.
In advance, many thanks for your valuable time and energy and, please excuse me for bothering you.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
Thank you very much; the problem was resolved in the light of your so valuable guidance.
Indeed, before choosing option 1 (regarding plotting in the XY plane), I should select option 0 (Set extension distance for plane type 1~5, current:) and, slightly increase the current number.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
I have a structure for which the ELF colored-filled mao is going to be generated (4--->9--->1--->1 (XY plane)). Indeed, the generated picture is larger than that can be fixed between X and Y axes. In other words, some parts of figure are covered by the X and Y axes and, I need to extend these axes so that all parts of figure are evidently seen. If possible, please let me know how I can resolve this problem.
Sincerely,
Saeed
Dear Tian,
OK, and many many thanks.
Sincerely,
Saeed