Which parameters do you obtain for V0 (equilibrium volume), K0 (bulk modulus), dK0/dP?
Paolo On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:13 PM, anyy zsj <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you. But there is still a discrepancy for the following data set: > 10.3 -54.420098694852939 > 10.4 -54.716135146323531 > 10.5 -54.894109787500000 > 10.7 -53.873787839705884 > modified ev.x gives 10.46368, while the fitting is 10.52255. > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Paolo Giannozzi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Funny: one of the parameters of the fit is good for small unit cells, but >> too small for larger cells. In line 162 of PW/tools/ev.f90, replace >> deltapar(1) = 0.1d0 >> with something larger: >> deltapar(1) = 1.0d0 >> should be sufficient. Thank you for noticing this >> >> Paolo >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:06 PM, anyy zsj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This data set is actual calculated because I use a large supercell: >>> 10.1 -48.570860572794118 >>> 10.3 -49.368013045588235 >>> 10.5 -49.714550792647060 >>> 10.7 -49.667482497058820 >>> 10.9 -49.305953287500003 >>> But the fitting results are not compatible. >>> >>> 2015-07-28 12:01 GMT-04:00 Paolo Giannozzi <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Please show me a set of data *produced by actual calculations* that >>>> ev.x doesn't fit properly >>>> >>>> paolo >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:51 PM, anyy zsj <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you very much! >>>>> Sure it is angstrom. My concern is that with the same data, ev.x and >>>>> the manual fitting give different results as shown above. So I believe >>>>> something is there. >>>>> The discrepancy is gone if I use a small lattice parameter. For >>>>> example, if I scale the data by 1/3, both of them give the same results. >>>>> So >>>>> what's going on? >>>>> >>>>> 2015-07-28 11:44 GMT-04:00 Paolo Giannozzi <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:26 PM, anyy zsj <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1.4989396432 -6.0466776328 >>>>>>> 1.5430233198 -6.0795705718 >>>>>>> 1.5879629631 -6.0993455319 >>>>>>> 1.6804430727 -5.9859764266 >>>>>>> The first column is volume and the second energy with Ry. After ev.x >>>>>>> I input Ang, noncubic, 4, it gives me a results of 0.40 for minimal >>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>> It is certainly wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> of course it is: ev.x assumes that the input data corresponds to a >>>>>> physical EOS. Your data isn't physical: the volume is way too small >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another example for the below data: >>>>>>> 10.1 -48.570860572794118 >>>>>>> 10.3 -49.368013045588235 >>>>>>> 10.5 -49.714550792647060 >>>>>>> 10.7 -49.667482497058820 >>>>>>> 10.9 -49.305953287500003 >>>>>>> The first column is lattice constant with angstrom and the second >>>>>>> energy with Ry. >>>>>>> >>>>>> After ev.x I input Ang, sc, 4, it gives me 10.50369, while I get a >>>>>>> different value 10.57517 by fitting to the formula in PRB 28,5480 (1983) >>>>>>> of Murnaghan's equation.: >>>>>>> http://gilgamesh.cheme.cmu.edu/doc/software/jacapo/appendices/appendix-eos.html >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> sure that the first column is in angstrom and not a.u.? This is what >>>>>> I get assuming it is in a.u.: >>>>>> >>>>>> # equation of state: murnaghan. chisq = 0.5402D-05 >>>>>> # a0 = 10.5740 a.u., k0 =13776 kbar, dk0 = 4.17 d2k0 = 0.000 emin >>>>>> = -49.73649 >>>>>> # a0 = 5.59554 Ang, k0 =1377.7 GPa, V0 = ******* (a.u.)^3, V0 >>>>>> =175.197 A^3 >>>>>> >>>>>> note the small value of the |chi|^2 (chisq) of the fit >>>>>> >>>>>> Paolo >>>>>> >>>>>> I have tested many groups of data but the discrepancy is there for >>>>>>> those large lattice parameters. Does ev.x use another equation or >>>>>>> something >>>>>>> else I have missing? Thank you very much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pw_forum mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Paolo Giannozzi, Dept. Chemistry&Physics&Environment, >>>>>> Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy >>>>>> Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pw_forum mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pw_forum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Paolo Giannozzi, Dept. Chemistry&Physics&Environment, >>>> Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy >>>> Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pw_forum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pw_forum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paolo Giannozzi, Dept. Chemistry&Physics&Environment, >> Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy >> Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pw_forum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pw_forum mailing list > [email protected] > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum > -- Paolo Giannozzi, Dept. Chemistry&Physics&Environment, Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222
_______________________________________________ Pw_forum mailing list [email protected] http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
