[Wien] Diference in EFG values

Muhammad Sajjad sajjadpu at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 13:39:36 CEST 2015


Dear Prof. Stefaan and Blaha
Thank you for your reply.
Actually I have to reduce separation energy to -8.5 Ry because core leakage
issue was appearing with Ge.

If I focus on Co, the useful information is:

*Magnetic moment *

     VASP                    WIEN2K

Co1 2.530                :MMI001:      = 2.35929

Co2 -2.530               :MMI002:      = -2.35900

*Core states *

    VASP
           WIEN2K

VRHFIN = Co: d8 s1
    E-up(Ry)             E-dn(Ry)             Occupancy         q/sphere
           core-state


1S             -557.761897      -557.761629           1.00  1.00
    1.0000                T


2S             -66.048914         -65.934880            1.00  1.00
      1.0000                T


2P*             -57.314278        -57.228799            1.00  1.00
      1.0000                T


2P              -56.225866         -56.137902            2.00  2.00
      1.0000                T


3S              -7.605100           -7.363843              1.00  1.00
        0.9968                 F


3P*             -5.003328           -4.767091              1.00  1.00
        0.9917                 F


3P              -4.866118           -4.631354               2.00  2.00
          0.9909                F


3D*             -0.699000          -0.490964               2.00  2.00
         0.8948                F

                                                                         3D
              -0.684578          -0.477338               3.00  0.00
       0.9053                F

                                                                         4S
              -0.423921          -0.381223               1.00  1.00
        0.1768                F


If I use -6 Ry as the separation energy then core states are


E-up(Ry)             E-dn(Ry)             Occupancy         q/sphere
       core-state


1S             -557.761897      -557.761629           1.00  1.00
    1.0000                T


2S             -66.048914         -65.934880            1.00  1.00
      1.0000                T


2P*             -57.314278        -57.228799            1.00  1.00
      1.0000                T


2P              -56.225866         -56.137902            2.00  2.00
      1.0000                T


3S              -7.605100           -7.363843              1.00  1.00
        0.9968                 T


3P*             -5.003328           -4.767091              1.00  1.00
        0.9917                 F


3P              -4.866118           -4.631354               2.00  2.00
          0.9909                F


3D*             -0.699000          -0.490964               2.00  2.00
         0.8948                F

                                                                         3D
              -0.684578          -0.477338               3.00  0.00
       0.9053                F

                                                                         4S
              -0.423921          -0.381223               1.00  1.00
        0.1768                F

According to my understanding, core-state with tag F are valence states. AM
I right? If yes then why it is taking 3P states as valence states? The
valence electrons for Co are 3d7, 4s2.

Kind Regards

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Peter Blaha <pblaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
wrote:

> And of course, make sure that the same DFT functionals are used (not
> comparing DFT+U and DFT alone. This could explain the differences on Co.
>
> PS: In addition, I'd make sure that the basic "electronic structure" is
> identical (magnetic moments, DOS, bands, ...)
>
> On 09/14/2015 04:07 PM, Stefaan Cottenier wrote:
>
>>
>> First guess (assuming everything is numerically converged): do you
>> consider the same electrons as valence electrons both in vasp and wien2k
>> ? It could happen that a 'semicore' state is taken as valence in wien2k
>> and core in vasp. As long as the EFG contribution of these states are
>> small, wien2k and vasp will show no differences. But if you hit a
>> crystal structure where these states have a larger EFG contribution,
>> then the differences will show up.
>>
>> You can find out whether or not this is the case by (1) explicitly
>> taking the same core/valence assignment in both codes, or (2) examining
>> the contribution to the EFG of all different oribitals (or regions of
>> the DOS). See http://www.wien2k.at/reg_user/faq/efg2.pdf (top of page 9)
>> for the procedure to follow in wien2k.
>>
>> No warranty, just a guess...
>>
>> Stefaan
>>
>>
>> Op 14/09/2015 om 15:53 schreef Muhammad Sajjad:
>>
>>> Dear Users
>>>
>>> I run some test calculations for EFG values for different compounds
>>> (Sc2O3, In, SmCo5). Their EFG values (computed with VASP) are in
>>> agreement with that of previous values. Then I computed the EFG values
>>> with WIEN2K and are in strong agreement with previous as well as VASP
>>> values.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the EFG values for anti-ferromagnetic Ba2CoGe2O7 do not agree with
>>> that of VASP values (no previous study available). Actually for Ge and
>>> O they agree *but for Co and Ba WIEN2K computed values are almost
>>> double*. Could you please guide me where the problem is? I am drawing
>>> a table containing the EFG values and also attaching the structure file.
>>>
>>> WIEN2K calculated values
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> VASP calculated values
>>>
>>>              V_zz (V/m^2 )
>>>
>>> Co1             13.22
>>>
>>> Co2             13.20
>>>
>>> Ba              -15.02
>>>
>>> Ge               7.49
>>>
>>> O1               9.32
>>>
>>> O2               9.93
>>>
>>> O3               9.42
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                   V_zz (V/m^2 )
>>>
>>>
>>> Co1                 5.97
>>>
>>> Co2                 5.97
>>>
>>> Ba                  -8.55
>>>
>>> Ge                   7.54
>>>
>>> O1                   9.73
>>>
>>> O2                 10.35
>>>
>>> O3                 9.00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>> Muhammad Sajjad
>>> Post Doctoral Fellow
>>> KAUST, KSA.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wien mailing list
>>> Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>>> http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
>>> SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Stefaan Cottenier
>> Center for Molecular Modeling (CMM) &
>> Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE)
>> Ghent University
>> Technologiepark 903
>> BE-9052 Zwijnaarde
>> Belgium
>>
>> http://molmod.ugent.be
>> http://www.ugent.be/ea/dmse/en
>> email:stefaan.cottenier at ugent.be
>>
>> my conference talks on Youtube:http://goo.gl/P2b1Hs
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wien mailing list
>> Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>> http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
>> SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
>>
>>
> --
>
>                                       P.Blaha
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter BLAHA, Inst.f. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna, A-1060 Vienna
> Phone: +43-1-58801-165300             FAX: +43-1-58801-165982
> Email: blaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at    WIEN2k: http://www.wien2k.at
> WWW:   http://www.imc.tuwien.ac.at/staff/tc_group_e.php
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wien mailing list
> Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
> http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
> SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
>



-- 
Kind Regards
Muhammad Sajjad
Post Doctoral Fellow
KAUST, KSA.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/pipermail/wien/attachments/20150915/09f0097a/attachment.html>


More information about the Wien mailing list