Hi Pietro,

Yes, the band gap obtained from the dos.x is consistent with the projwfc.x. And 
the k-point mesh was well converged in the scf computation, which is further 
used (charge density) for the NSCF calculations.
Thanks for the correction of the ecutrho value.
Kind regards
Habib

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Pietro Delugas
Sent: 09 September 2016 17:49
To: PWSCF Forum <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Inconsistency between DOS and Band structure


Hi Habib

there were too many k-points so the program is not printing out the eigenvalues 
in the standard ouput, but if I understand correctly, the dos computed with 
dos.x is in agreement with the pdoses computed with projwfc.x, is it right ?

It's hard to understand what went wrong, I  would  check that the k-point mesh  
used for the selfconsistent computation was well converged and that I have  
been using  the  same charge density ( and that it is a correct one)    for  
bands and  dos  non-scf calculations.

Just one more thing which, likely  has nothing to do with your problem: when 
you use norm-conserving pseudopotential there is no use in setting a value of 
ecutrho in the input.

greetings -pietro


On 09/09/2016 18:05, Ullah, Habib wrote:
Dear Pietro,

Thanks for your reply and guidance. Yes, first I did the NSCF simulation, and 
after that the dos.x and Projwfc.x; kindly have a look on the attached non-scf 
output file.

Kind regards
Habib

From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pietro Delugas
Sent: 09 September 2016 16:43
To: PWSCF Forum <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Inconsistency between DOS and Band structure


Hi Habib

You should have a look to the eigenvalues you obtained in the  non self 
consistent computation you made before doing the pdos.

Have you tried to compute the dos using the dos.x program using those same 
eigenvalues ?

Also check, in the standard output of projwfc.x what are the projections for 
the eigenfunctions close to the band edges

Greetings - Pietro

Il 09 set 2016 5:01 PM, "Ullah, Habib" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:

Dear QE Users,



I am calculating the DOS/PDOS and Band Structure of BiVO4 but getting different 
band gaps. i.e., in case of DOS/PDOS the band gap is 2.1 eV while in the band 
structure simulations, it is 1.40 eV. I am using the same pseudopotentials for 
these simulations. Any one knows, where I am doing the mistake??

Kind regards

Habib



The input/script for the PDOS is!



&PROJWFC

    outdir = '/home/ISAD/hu203/Test/BiVO4/' ,

    prefix = 'BiVO4'

    degauss = 0.02,

    filpdos = 'BiVO4.pdos' ,

    Emin = -25.0,

    Emax = 25.0,

    DeltaE = 0.01,

/



While for the band structure simulations, the input is!



&CONTROL

  calculation='bands',

  outdir='/home/ISAD/hu203/Bismuth/BiVO4_Bulk/Optimized-BiVO4/',

  prefix='BiVO4-bulk',

  pseudo_dir='/home/ISAD/hu203/habib/espresso-5.0.3/pseudo/',

  verbosity='high',

  tstress=.false.,

  tprnfor=.false.,

/

&SYSTEM

  ibrav=6,

  celldm(1)=9.7264200532d0, celldm(3)=2.2773654464d0,

  nat=24,

  ntyp=3,

  ecutwfc=50.0d0,

  ecutrho=500.0d0,

  input_dft='LDA',

  occupations='smearing',

  smearing='Marzari-Vanderbilt',

  degauss=0.002000d0,

/

&ELECTRONS

  diagonalization='david',

  conv_thr=1d-06,

  mixing_mode='plain',

  mixing_beta=0.700d0,

/

&IONS

ion_dynamics='bfgs'

/

&CELL

cell_dynamics='bfgs'

/

ATOMIC_SPECIES

  Bi 208.980000d0 Bi.pz-hgh.UPF

  O 15.999400d0 O.pz-hgh.UPF

  V 50.941500d0 V.pz-n-nc.UPF



ATOMIC_POSITIONS {alat}

  Bi      -0.000000471   0.249996017   1.423344718

  Bi       0.000000471   0.750003983   0.854020728

  Bi       0.500000213   0.749997379   0.284678980

  Bi       0.499999787   0.250002621   1.992686467

  V       -0.000003024   0.249994359   0.284670658

  V        0.000003024   0.750005641   1.992694788

  V        0.499995001   0.749991398   1.423364351

  V        0.500004999   0.250008602   0.854001096

  O        0.155441724   0.505701408   0.475790644

 O        0.844558291   0.494298592   1.801574768

  O        0.344551861   0.494281095   1.614473212

  O        0.655448139   0.505718905   0.662892234

  O        0.244301959   0.405442926   1.045129589

  O        0.755698041   0.594557074   1.232235857

  O        0.255708742   0.594561054   2.183807364

  O        0.744291258   0.405438946   0.093558117

  O        0.655440753   1.005707807   1.614459537

  O        0.344559247  -0.005707807   0.662905910

  O        0.844558823  -0.005710586   0.475801005

  O        0.155441192   1.005710586   1.801564407

  O        0.744296280   0.905441554   2.183811886

  O        0.255703720   0.094558431   0.093553594

  O        0.755708996   0.094565293   1.045123098

  O        0.244291004   0.905434692   1.232242348



K_POINTS {crystal_b}

11

   0.0000000000     0.0000000000     0.0000000000   50 !  G

   0.0000000000     0.5000000000     0.0000000000   50 !  X

   0.0000000000     0.5000000000     0.5000000000   50 !  R

   0.0000000000     0.0000000000     0.5000000000   50 !  Z

   0.0000000000     0.0000000000     0.0000000000   50 !  G

   0.5000000000     0.5000000000     0.0000000000   50 !  M

   0.5000000000     0.5000000000     0.5000000000   50 !  A

   0.0000000000     0.0000000000     0.5000000000   50 !  Z

   0.5000000000     0.0000000000     0.5000000000   50 !  R

   0.5000000000     0.0000000000     0.0000000000   50 !  X

   0.0000000000     0.0000000000     0.0000000000   50 !  G







_______________________________________________

Pw_forum mailing list

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum

_______________________________________________
Pw_forum mailing list
[email protected]
http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum

Reply via email to