[Pw_forum] A method on defining a based-centered monoclinic cell

yinwei_li yinwei_li at yahoo.cn
Mon Mar 9 13:31:36 CET 2009

Sorry, everyone, MS is Materials Studio modeling.

 In fact, I found many users, as well as me, have problems on the input defining a based-centered monoclinic cell. For example, a c2m structure with 
a=11.692, b=2.159, c=3.463, beta=103.7, 
A  (0.152   0    0.373 )
B  (0.054    0.5    0.976) 
B  (0.745    0.5    0.889)
B  (0.946    0.5    0.388)
As described in the documentation, the input information is:
  ntyp= 2,
A   0.15200   0.15200   0.37300
A   0.84800   0.84800   0.62700
B    0.55400   0.55400   0.97600
B    0.24500   0.24500  -0.11100
B     0.44600   0.44600   0.38800
B     0.44600   0.44600   0.02400
B     0.75500   0.75500   0.11100
B     0.55400   0.55400   0.61200

However, this will give us a different structure with that in Materials Studio (MS). I know there is something 
wrong in my input, because the atomic positions I input are directly obtained from the Materials Studio (MS).
Unfortunately, the transformation matrix from the unit cell to the primitive cell is different between the MS 
and PWSCF, therefore, my input form is not accordance with the PWSCF, but I do not know how to change 
my input. However, If I change the defining form in the PWSCF to the one used in MS, with my input I will 
get a correct structure.  
 If some one could get a correct structure of the above parameters with the defining form in the PWSCF, please show me the input file.



Yinwei Li (李印威)
State Key Lab of Superhard Materials, Jilin University
2699 Qianjin Str.
130012, Changchun
P. R. China

发件人: Paolo Giannozzi 
发送时间: 2009-03-09  18:47:32 
收件人: PWSCF Forum 
主题: Re: [Pw_forum] A method on defining a based-centered monoclinic cell 
On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:14 , yinwei_li wrote:
>  In fact, we could  change the setting (ibrav=13) in the flib/ 
> latgen.f90 from
>  [...] to [...] which corresponding with the defining form in the MS.
MS = manuscript? Master of Science? Multiple Sclerosis?
> I have tested it and found this way of defining could give us a  
> right structure.
do you have any evidence that the current code produces an incorrect
structure, or that the documentation is incorrect? case ibrav=13 has  
corrected more than once and as far as I know it is both correct and
consistent with what the documentation says.
Paolo Giannozzi, Democritos and University of Udine, Italy
Pw_forum mailing list
Pw_forum at pwscf.org
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3919 (20090309) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quantum-espresso.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20090309/94356537/attachment.html>

More information about the users mailing list