[Wien] PBE vs mBJ

[Marcelo Barbosa]

Thank you very much for your help!

Best regards,
Marcelo

> On 21 Jul 2017, at 15:58, tran at theochem.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> mBJ was made to be good for band gaps only, such that there is
> no reason to expect better results than PBE for other properties
> like EFG. So, in a publication this would justify to consider the EFG
> from PBE instead of mBJ.
> 
> FT
> 
> On Friday 2017-07-21 16:45, Marcelo Barbosa wrote:
> 
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:45:21
>> From: Marcelo Barbosa <marcelo.b.barbosa at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: A Mailing list for WIEN2k users <wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
>> To: A Mailing list for WIEN2k users <wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
>> Subject: [Wien] PBE vs mBJ
>> 
>> Dear Sirs,
>> 
>> I’m interested in simulating the EFG at impurity sites in wide band gap semiconductors and their impact in the density of states.
>> I’ve been using the PBE functional to optimize the structure but then I used to mBJ potential to get a better band gap and density of states.
>> However, the EFG values change considerably from PBE to mBJ, being the PBE results the ones closer to the experimental values.
>> Therefore, I would like to ask if I can consider the EFG values from PBE and the density of states from mBJ or if this is not a good approach.
>> 
>> Thank you very much.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Marcelo
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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