Dear Wien2k developers and users, I would like to calculate Bader charges in BaTiO3. The input and output files are uploaded to https://www.mediafire.com/file/o6ceodngk93mh72/aim.rar/file for your kind consideration.
I have run a PBE-GGA calculation using 1000 k-points, RMTKmax =7, Gmax = 12 (Bohr)-1 employing WIIEN2k_21.1 and then executed “x aim” by the third part of case.inaim from SRC_templates. The calculated charges are: Ba: 2.91, Ti: 2.68, O: 0.299 The results cannot satisfy the stoichiometry of the compound because of the positive charge wrongly calculated for O, i.e., 2.91+2.68+3*0.299=6.487 != 0 Then, to improve the results, I increased the LM in the original calculation with no optimistic effect. Accidently, I found that the Bader charges of BaTiO3 can be perfectly improved using “x aim” of WIIEN2k_18.2 as follows: Ba: 1.52, Ti: 2.23, O: -1.25 The above results, as calculated by the older version 18.2, not only give a negative value for the charge of oxygen but also perfectly lead to zero taking the stoichiometry of the compound into account, i.e., 1.52+2.23+3*(-1.25) = 0. For sure, I checked the 14 and 16.1 versions of the WIEN2k code and found correct results the same as WIIEN2k_18.2. This shows that most likely something is different in the older versions WIIEN2k_18.2, WIIEN2k_16.1, and WIIEN2k_14 compared to the latest version WIIEN2k_21.1? I also checked LaCrO3, and found the same dissonancy. The Bader charges were calculated for LaCrO3 to be La: 2.08, Cr: 1.65, O: -1.24 in Ref. [Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 4933]. These results also correctly lead to zero approximately: 2.08+1.65+3*(-1.24) ~ 0.01. Would you, please, have a look at this issue and let us know the source of the above discrepancy? Sincerely yours, Leila Mollabashi
_______________________________________________ Wien mailing list Wien@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