Dear Paolo, dear Pietro,

 thank you for the quick answer and for the advise!

 I'm currently trying to re-generate the pseudo with the Vanderbilt code, but 
facing extra complications.

 I let you know if the fix works as soon as I'll be able to get the new atomic 
rho.


Thanks again,


Nicola






-----------------------------------------------------
PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUT
Nicola S. Colonna
WHGA/150
CH-5232 Villigen-PSI
________________________________
Da: users <[email protected]> per conto di Pietro Davide 
Delugas <[email protected]>
Inviato: venerdì 28 agosto 2020 09:22:18
A: [email protected]
Oggetto: Re: [QE-users] Wrong electron number in superposition of atomic charge 
densities

Ciao Nicola

Quick and I don't know how dirty:  generate a pseudo with 12 electrons   copy  
the rhoatom section from there  and copy it in  place of the 11 electrons rhoat 
in the pseudo you've been using.
 greetings - Pietro


On 8/27/20 5:28 PM, Colonna Nicola (PSI) wrote:

Dear QE experts,


 I recently perfomed a scf PBEsol calculation for Tb2Ti2O7 (attached the input 
file).

 I would like to plot the difference between the scf charge density and the 
superposition

 of atomic charge. For this purpose I used the PostProcessing tool (plut_num = 
9).


 I expected the integral of this difference to be ~0 , but I found it to be 4. 
After a quick check

 I realized that the Ti pseudopotetial (GBRV-1.4, ti_pbesol_v1.4.uspp.F.UPF) 
was generated

 in an ionized configuration with just 1 electron (instead of 2 ) in the  3d 
orbital. Since there

 are 4 Ti in the primitive cell, I think this is the reason for the odd result 
described above.


 Indeed during the initialization of a scf calculation for an isolated Ti atom 
I got:



Initial potential from superposition of free atoms
     Check: negative starting charge=   -0.001319
     starting charge   10.99996, renormalised to   12.00000


 However this renormalization is not done in the PP, and in any case I do not 
think it would make sense there.


 That said, my feeling is that I cannot completely trust the charge density 
difference.

 Do you have any advise on how to solve this problem (beside changing pseudo)?


 Thank you in advance and best regards,


Nicola Colonna



-----------------------------------------------------
PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUT
Nicola S. Colonna
WHGA/150
CH-5232 Villigen-PSI



_______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX 
(www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso<http://www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso>)
users mailing list 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso)
users mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to