Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Simulating Twisted Bilayer Graphene (tBLG) with GPUMD: Issue with Combining Potentials #786

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
akabli-younes opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@akabli-younes
Copy link

Dear Developers,

I am trying to simulate twisted bilayer graphene (tBLG) using the latest version of GPUMD, aiming to reproduce results from existing studies and to compare them with the results I have already obtained using LAMMPS.

However, I am facing difficulties when using a combination of LJ (Lennard-Jones) or ILP (interlayer potential) with the Tersoff potential. While the simulation works well when using only the Tersoff potential, issues arise when I try to combine it with either LJ or ILP.

the potential files for reference.
C_15.txt
ilp_tmd_sw_ILP_HBNC_oywg_2018.txt
Does anyone have experience with using these potentials together in GPUMD or advice on resolving this issue? Any suggestions or insights would be greatly appreciated!

@BBBuZHIDAO
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi, it is so sorry that the ILP in the newest version is just for TMD system. Actually the potentials are ILP and SW. So now this ILP could not simulate graphene. 😢
But you can use the old version where LJ could combine the Tersoff for tBLG. (v3.3.1)

@BBBuZHIDAO
Copy link
Collaborator

Hello, these days GPUMD has updated a new hybrid potential NEP+ILP for graphene and h-BN systems. It could be used to simulate tBLG, too. The usage is in #835 and will update in official doc later. May this method could help you! If any other questions, please feel free to let me know!

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 15, 2025
@brucefan1983 brucefan1983 converted this issue into discussion #914 Feb 15, 2025

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants