Closed 1234zou closed 3 years ago
The precision of the ECP parameters in the output file is currently not enough to be used in input. See source/ecplib.src line 1886
9170 FORMAT(I5,F15.5,I5,F15.5)
https://github.com/gms-bbg/gamess/blob/f4fed2e3c874b674b74fe2d72c59104ec26bf59e/source/ecplib.src#L1886
The ECP parameters which correspond to GAMESS internal basis set library are as follows:
$ECP
1-ECP GEN 46 3
2 ----- f-ul potential -----
-1.54435219D+01 1 9.82972856D+00
-5.89611285D+00 1 1.98070077D+00
3 ----- s-f potential -----
-2.23643982D+02 2 2.12955579D+00
2.78134515D+02 2 2.22746546D+00
1.26210718D+01 0 7.28371963D+00
3 ----- p-f potential -----
1.25256390D+01 0 7.80928039D+00
1.21952782D+02 2 1.92977861D+00
-7.94047512D+01 2 1.76478925D+00
2 ----- d-f potential -----
2.61926652D+01 2 1.79797432D+00
9.87391206D+00 0 6.54805153D+00
$END
Thank you, @vamironov ! Problem solved.
[ ] Summary of the issue and expected results. For RHF/SBKJC calculation of a single cation Pr5+, the RHF energy using built-in SBKJC ECP/PP is -41.511677 a.u. But if I copy SBKJC ECP/PP data from GAMESS output, and paste it into the input file (as well as change PP=SBKJC to PP=READ), the RHF energy is -41.511723 a.u. The energy difference is not negligible.
[ ] Description of the run environment:
Centos 7.4
Intel 2019 Update 5
Intel MKL
sockets
2020-Sep-30(R2)
[ ] An input file (if applicable) to reproduce the issue.
Using built-in SBKJC ECP/PP:
Using user-defined SBKJC ECP/PP:
Thank you!