<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt;color:#7f3f00;"><table width="700" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center"><tbody><tr><td width="100%" height="100%" bgcolor="#88bd63" valign="top"><table width="100%" height="100%" style="table-layout:fixed;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center"><tbody><tr><td width="45"> </td><td valign="top" style="overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><table width="100%" style="white-space:normal;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td height="40"> </td></tr><tr><td><font face="bookman old style, new york, times, serif" size="2" color="#7f3f00" style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10;color:#7f3f00;"><div style="text-align:undefined;"><DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Dear Wien2k users,<SPAN lang=AR-SA dir=rtl></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I am working on an anti-ferromagnetic crystal using Wien2k_9.2. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I have changed the spin directions in case.inst file to set up the antiferromagnetic phase and used runsp_lapw script.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Our LDA and/or GGA calculation yields zero for the total <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1275475969_0 style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #366388 2px dotted">magnetic moment</SPAN> (:MMTOT = 0) as expected.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>The :MMTOT also converged to zero applying LDA+U and/or GGA+U successfully.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>We calculated the :MMTOT for several U values and plotted the :MMTOT versus U. We found :MMTO = 0 for small U values.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>However, at a larger U value we suddenly observe a jump in :MMTOT, which results in a nonzero :MMTOT in an antiferromagnetism calculations. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>We analyzed the result by monitoring the :MMTOT from first to last iterations and found a well converged result without any serious jump each iterations. This mad us sure about the accuracy of our calculations. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>But, we are not sure how it can be possible to reach a nonzero :MMTOT within our initial case.inst with antiferromagnetic ordering.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Can we conclude that for that large U value ferromagnetic phase is more stable than the antiferromagnetic phase? Or we should conclude that the large U value is not suitable value for our case.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Similar experiences were observed by the alpha parameter in the EECE calculations. For small alpha values we obtained :MMTOT = 0, but for at a large alpha value we obtained again a nonzero total magnetic moment.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Although the LDA+U and EECE calculations are not constraint calculations like fixed magnetic moment calculations, but it is hard to expect to obtain ferromagnetic phase from an initial antiferromagnetic setup. Should we change the <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1275475969_1>density matrix elements</SPAN> to change the initial value to reach MMTOT=0? Or we should not consider that U or alpha value as a physical parameter?</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Any comments will be highly appreciated.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Esmaeil Ghasemi</P></DIV></div></font></td></tr><tr><td height="50"> </td></tr></tbody></table></td><td width="45"> </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td height="160" bgcolor="#88bd63"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center"><tr><td width="*"> </td><td align="center" width="700" height="160"><img src="cid:1275476049831@dclient.mail.yahoo.com" width="700" /></td><td width="*"> </td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div><br>
</body></html>