Queries about input and output files, running specific calculations, etc.
Moderators: Global Moderator, Moderator
-
KWH
- Jr. Member

- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:05 am
- License Nr.: 5-1063
#1
Post
by KWH » Wed Mar 18, 2026 4:57 am
Hello:
Part way through a calculation I am getting the error:
ERROR FEXCP: supplied Exchange-correlation table is too small, maximal index : 5325
I don't know what it means and I don't understand why it is happening after one complete electronic optimization. I have attached all the relevent files. Your help will be appreciated.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
henrique_miranda
- Global Moderator

- Posts: 582
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:41 pm
-
Contact:
#2
Post
by henrique_miranda » Fri Mar 20, 2026 9:33 am
Two things seem to be happening:
The SCF part of the calculation is slow to converge but it seems to stop because you have have a relatively high tolerance for the convergence of the energy: EDIFF = 0.001
This might be inssuficient to get accurate enough forces. Indeed looking at them in the OUTCAR I see that some of them are quite large.
This might make the next ionic step into a very different structure and then you get this error.
The first thing you should probably try to do is see if the electronic minimization converges with a minimum version of the INCAR you have:
Code: Select all
ISYM = 0
NCORE = 64
# Accuracy controls:
PREC = ACCURATE ## want ACCURATE eventually
ENCUT = 500
SIGMA = 0.1
EDIFF = 1e-6 # this needs to be lower than your setting
## opt PBE + vdW
GGA = OR
AGGAC = 0.0
LUSE_VDW = .TRUE.
LASPH = .TRUE.
If this works, then you can try using IBRION=3 in the first steps of the ionic minimization.
Let me know if this helps!
-
KWH
- Jr. Member

- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:05 am
- License Nr.: 5-1063
#3
Post
by KWH » Sat Mar 21, 2026 4:47 am
Henrique
It changed the error but still crashed (files attached). This time it failed to converge even at the first electronic optimization. Should I next try the ALGO=ALL I used in my previous attempt? It did get through the first electronic optimizaation?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
KWH
- Jr. Member

- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:05 am
- License Nr.: 5-1063
#4
Post
by KWH » Sat Mar 21, 2026 5:54 am
I did try to change ALGO to ALL, but the electronic cycle still diverged.
-
henrique_miranda
- Global Moderator

- Posts: 582
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:41 pm
-
Contact:
#5
Post
by henrique_miranda » Mon Mar 23, 2026 2:24 pm
Ok, it looks like it is oscillating around the solution.
You tried ALGO=ALL that is a good idea.
Can you try the following steps:
- ALGO=All, with TIME=0.05, NELM=120 and with low ENCUT (if you don't set it then VASP will use the MAX ENMAX of the POTCARS).
- If step 1 converges then try the ionic relaxation with IBRION=3 and NSW=10 or so.
- Once you reach a more stable ionic convergence you can try to increase TIME. This will speed up the electronic convergence allowing you to do faster ionic steps.
- Increase ENCUT
Let me know if this helps.