[Wien] Large difference in calculated and experimental EFG

Peter Blaha pblaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at
Tue Mar 19 07:32:14 CET 2019


I guess you said it is TiNi.

How can a 2x2x2 supercell have 24 atoms ? This implies it has 3 atoms in 
the original cell, but that cannot be TiNi.

Even more puzzling: 3x3x2 times 3 is for sure not 48 atoms ????

PS: I'd definitely go first to about 60 atoms cells, later on test 
convergence with 120 atoms cells !!!

More problems: What is your RKmax ? You definitely should increase it 
from the default 7.0 !   What is your k-mesh ?? It is a metal !

And finally: Is it know whether the Ta sits on a substitutional site ? 
Which one, Ti or Ni ?  Or is it some interstital site ??

Most likely this is not well known experimentally. So several different 
model calculations may be necessary and you can use E-tot (lowest) as 
well as the EFG/eta to decide which structural model is the correct one.

Am 19.03.2019 um 05:56 schrieb Ramsewak Kashyap:
> In 2x2x2 supercell, total no. of atoms was 24 and it gave EFG value 6.5 
> 10**21V/m**2 with eta 0.81.
> I have also calculated for 3x3x2 supercell has 48 atoms and it gave EFG 
> value 6.3 10**21V/m**2 with eta 0.88
> 
> While experimental is about EFG is 4.4 with eta 0.60..
> 
> On Mon 18 Mar, 2019, 7:39 PM Peter Blaha, <pblaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at 
> <mailto:pblaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at>> wrote:
> 
>     Most importantly: You talked about a 2x2x2 supercell ???
> 
>     We don't know how big your original cell was, but a 16 atome cell
>     with 1
>     T is not an impurity as measured in PAC.
>     How many atoms are in this supercell ???
> 
>     You must probably increase the supercell size and check convergence of
>     the EFG.
> 
>     On 3/18/19 1:15 PM, Stefaan Cottenier wrote:
>      > If the goal is to have a EFG that is a predictive as possible for
>      > experiment, then it is advised to take the experimental cell
>     parameters
>      > (but with position optimization).
>      >
>      > If that EFG does not agree with experiment, then this is a
>     trigger to
>      > search further. There can be many reasons (assuming both the
>     experiment
>      > and the calculation are correctly done):
>      >
>      >   * You have an unusually sensitive case, where small details that
>      >     usually do not matter do affect the EFG
>      >   * The effect of temperature might be unusually large (your
>     calculation
>      >     is at 0 K)
>      >   * Maybe the Ta atom is associated with a defect (vacancy, oxygen,…)
>      >     and the experiment measures that complex.
>      >   * …
>      >
>      > Stefaan
>      >
>      > *From:*Wien <wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>> *On Behalf Of
>      > *Ramsewak Kashyap
>      > *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2019 12:41 PM
>      > *To:* A Mailing list for WIEN2k users
>     <wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto:wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>>
>      > *Subject:* Re: [Wien] Large difference in calculated and
>     experimental EFG
>      >
>      > atomic positions  optimization means force relaxation.. I have
>     did that.
>      > but I am asking about cell parameter optimization. Is it
>     necessary for
>      > .cif file getting form COD??
>      >
>      > Thanks
>      >
>      > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:55 PM Stefaan Cottenier
>      > <Stefaan.Cottenier at ugent.be <mailto:Stefaan.Cottenier at ugent.be>
>     <mailto:Stefaan.Cottenier at ugent.be
>     <mailto:Stefaan.Cottenier at ugent.be>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Yes, optimization of the atomic positions is absolutely
>     necessary to
>      >     have a meaningful value for Vzz and eta in a supercell.
>      >
>      >     Stefaan
>      >
>      >     *From:*Wien <wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
>      >     <mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>>> *On Behalf Of
>      >     *Ramsewak Kashyap
>      >     *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2019 12:23 PM
>      >     *To:* A Mailing list for WIEN2k users
>      >     <wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto:wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
>      >     <mailto:wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto:wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>>>
>      >     *Subject:* [Wien] Large difference in calculated and
>     experimental EFG
>      >
>      >     Hi Wien2k users,
>      >
>      >     I am doing EFG calculation for TiNi monoclinic phase, but I am
>      >     getting large difference in Calculated and measured value, I have
>      >     taken parameters from COD, then make 2x2x2 supercell and
>     replace one
>      >     Ti with Ta atom... is structural optimization is necessary??  and
>      >     eta value was also quite large as compare to measured value.
>      >
>      >     --
>      >
>      >     Ramsewak Kashyap
>      >     Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics
>      >     9473811023
>      >
>      >     _______________________________________________
>      >     Wien mailing list
>      > Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto:Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
>     <mailto:Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto: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
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      >
>      > Ramsewak Kashyap
>      > Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics
>      > 9473811023
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Wien mailing list
>      > Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:blaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at>    WIEN2k: http://www.wien2k.at
>     WWW: http://www.imc.tuwien.ac.at/TC_Blaha
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wien mailing list
>     Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at <mailto: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
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/tc_blaha------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



More information about the Wien mailing list