Dear Gavin,
Now I have used the same tetragonal structure with centrosymmetric atomic
positions. The polarization calculated with the centrosymmetric structure
is in an order of e-13. So it didn't modify the results significantly. I am
attaching the currently used centrosymmetric,
Dear Gavin,
This is a very good point. I certainly agree that the symmetry of the cubic structure should be reduced to that of the tetragonal structure.
Thank youÂ
OlegÂ
On May 8, 2018, at 04:05, Gavin Abo wrote:
In the BaTiO3 tutorial, lambda1.struct and
In the BaTiO3 tutorial, lambda1.struct and lambda0.struct both have
spacegroup 99_P4mm and 8 symmetry operations [
https://github.com/spichardo/BerryPI/wiki/Tutorial-1:-Spontaneous-Polarization-in-BaTiO3
].
I see a sentence in the tutorial:
/The symmetry operations are identical (!) to the
Dear Lokanath,
I am traveling and will be able to look into this at the end of May. In the
meanwhile would you please share a comparison of your PbTiO3 structure vs
experiments through the list.
Thank you
Oleg
> On May 7, 2018, at 13:36, Lokanath Patra wrote:
Dear Oleg,
I am attaching the structure files which I have used for the calculation. I
have used similar procedure as given for BaTiO3 tutorial (same parameters
for initialising and same k-point mesh for Berrypi. The calculated
polarisation for cubic phase is very low. So so spontaneous
Dear Lokanath,
PbTiO3 was one of compounds used in the test of BerryPI (see Table 3 in
http://olegrubel.mcmaster.ca/publications/2013/Ahmed_CPC_184_2013.pdf).
I think you should also compute polarization in the cubic structure of
PbTiO3 even though they are deemed to have no polarization. If
Dear all,
I am using Berry phase tutorial to calculate the polarization of PbTiO3. I
have followed the BaTiO3 tutorial. I have two structures, one is tetragonal
(non-centrosymmetric) and the second one is cubic (centrosymmetric). I have
calculated the (spontaneous) polarization as 1.189769e-01
7 matches
Mail list logo