Dear All,

I want to study two polymorphs of an iron containing compound. Each polymorph 
has 4 symmetrically equivalent Fe-sites (space group Pnma). One of the 
polymorphs have the Fe-sites at the inversion centers of the crystal and the 
other does not. Looking at the band structure I find 20 isolated low-energy 
bands of strong d-orbital character, with no hybridization with other states, 
and a small bandwidth. So I want to extract 20 wannier functions to construct a 
low energy model. In order for the model Hamiltonian to be symmetrical I would 
like to have the wannier functions well centered exactly at Fe atomic 
positions, and those WFs should be interchangeable between them by crystal 
symmetry operations.

When using QE with pw2wannier90 and wannier90, I am able to extract 
non-symmetry adapted WFs that represent the band structure perfectly, but the 
wannier centres are slightly misplaced from the Fe sites, and therefore I have 
20 non inequivalent WF and slightly different Hamiltonian matrix elements 
between sites. However when I try to do the calculation with the 
‘site_symmetry’ tag set to .true., I find that the wannier functios keep being 
misplaced and look exactly the same as the ones without symmetry.

Looking further into the .sym and .dmn I find that the only operation appearing 
is

 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000
 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000

 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

And the header of the .dmn file is

170 1 40 40

So, definitely the calculation has not detected the symmetry of the structure, 
because only one operation is applied and the amount of irreducible k-points 
(which is 18 in my scf calculation) is 40. I’m sure I am missing something, I 
think that the fact that I had to use explicit 40 k-points for the 'nscf' 
calculation to match the k-point list in the .win file Is contrary to the 
calculation considering any symmetry. So thats why the later pw2wannier90 run 
just does not consider any symmetry.


Any suggestions for solving this would be much appreciated.


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

Reply via email to