[Pw_forum] Strange pp.x output after vc-relax (v3.1)
Steven Kirk
Steven.Kirk at hv.se
Tue Jun 27 12:34:43 CEST 2006
Hello,
I have been trying to run a vc-relax calculation using pw.x (Q-E v3.1)
to get a relaxed configuration of a unit cell at a specified external
pressure, then dumping the relaxed cell configuration and charge density
distribution using pp.x. My input data is below
pw.x input
==========
&CONTROL
title='iceXI calculation',
calculation='vc-relax',
restart_mode='from_scratch',
prefix='iceXI',
dt=30.0,
nstep = 100,
tstress = .true.,
tprnfor = .true.
/
&SYSTEM
ibrav = 8,
A = 4.383, B = 7.623, C = 7.163, cosAB = 0, cosAC = 0, cosBC = 0,
nat = 24,
ntyp = 2,
ecutwfc = 100.0
/
&ELECTRONS
/
&IONS
ion_dynamics='damp'
/
&CELL
cell_dynamics='damp-w',
press = 100.0
wmass = 0.0004
/
ATOMIC_SPECIES
O 15.9994 O.pbe-rrkjus.UPF
H 1.00794 H.pbe-rrkjus.UPF
ATOMIC_POSITIONS {crystal}
O 0.00000 0.66600 0.05900
O 0.50000 0.16600 0.05900
O 0.00000 0.33400 0.55900
O 0.50000 0.83400 0.55900
O 0.50000 0.83300 0.93400
O 0.00000 0.33300 0.93400
O 0.50000 0.16700 0.43400
O 0.00000 0.66700 0.43400
H 0.68300 0.76800 0.98100
H 0.18300 0.26800 0.98100
H 0.31700 0.23200 0.48100
H -0.18300 0.73200 0.48100
H 0.68300 0.23200 0.48100
H 0.18300 0.73200 0.48100
H 0.31700 0.76800 0.98100
H -0.18300 0.26800 0.98100
H 0.00000 0.66400 0.19800
H 0.00000 0.54100 0.01700
H 0.50000 0.16400 0.19800
H 0.50000 0.04100 0.01700
H 0.00000 0.33600 0.69800
H 0.00000 0.45900 0.51700
H 0.50000 0.83600 0.69800
H 0.50000 0.95900 0.51700
K_POINTS automatic
4 4 4 0 0 0
pp.x input
==========
&INPUTPP
prefix = 'iceXI' ,
filplot = 'iceXI.chdens' ,
plot_num = 0,
/
&PLOT
nfile = 1 ,
filepp(1) = 'iceXI.chdens',
weight(1) = 1.0,
fileout = 'iceXI.xsf' ,
iflag = 3 ,
output_format = 3 ,
/
===========
The problem is that the output cell parameters (at least) in the output
.XSF file are the ORIGINAL cell parameters, not the RELAXED cell parameters.
What has gone wrong here ? Why doesn't my output XSF file contain the
details for the relaxed cell ? Are the XSF lattice parameters , the XSF
atomic coordinates or the 3D charge density grid wrong, or possibly all
three?
Many thanks!
Steve Kirk
--
Dr. Steven R. Kirk <Steven.Kirk at hv.se, S.R.Kirk at physics.org>
Dept. of Technology, Mathematics & Computer Science (P)+46 520 223215
University West (F)+46 520 223299
P.O. Box 957 Trollhattan 461 29 SWEDEN http://taconet.webhop.org
More information about the users
mailing list