Running a Bader Charge calculation upon VASP, I met similar questions of overstimation of Ce and Pr core charges, which is unresonable.
The results are followings:
ACF.dat
::::::::::::::
# X Y Z CHARGE MIN DIST ATOMIC VOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2287.1659 1.6671 34.4778
2 0.0000 0.0000 5.9285 2287.1659 1.6671 34.4778
3 1.8405 1.0626 2.9642 2287.2212 1.6425 35.0916
4 1.8405 -1.0626 8.8927 2287.2209 1.6425 35.0880
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS: 9148.77382
::::::::::::::
ACF.core.dat
::::::::::::::
# X Y Z CHARGE MIN DIST ATOMIC VOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2273.1304 1.6563 35.1005
2 0.0000 0.0000 5.9285 2273.1304 1.6563 35.1005
3 1.8405 1.0626 2.9642 2273.1304 1.6425 34.4671
4 1.8405 -1.0626 8.8927 2273.1304 1.6425 34.4671
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS: 9092.52145
::::::::::::::
ACF.valence.dat
::::::::::::::
# X Y Z CHARGE MIN DIST ATOMIC VOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.0352 1.6671 34.4743
2 0.0000 0.0000 5.9285 14.0352 1.6671 34.4743
3 1.8405 1.0626 2.9642 14.0912 1.6425 35.0951
4 1.8405 -1.0626 8.8927 14.0908 1.6425 35.0916
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS: 56.25237
The three results are calcuated by running Bader on the CHGCAR_SUM, AECCAR0 and AECCAR2 respectively.
The POSCAR of Ce gamma phase bulk and the PAW_PBE POTCAR are used.
I do not know the reason causing the unreasonalbe overestimation of Ce core charges.
Actually, the same problem occurs for the Pr alpha phase bulk and CeH2 bulk.
The Pr results are listed here:
::::::::::::::
ACF.dat
::::::::::::::
# X Y Z CHARGE MIN DIST ATOMIC VOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4888.5463 1.5817 35.7103
2 0.0000 0.0000 5.9163 4888.5463 1.5817 35.7103
3 1.8360 1.0600 2.9581 4888.3265 1.4520 33.3789
4 1.8360 -1.0600 8.8744 4888.3265 1.4520 33.3789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS: 19553.74557
ACF.core.dat
::::::::::::::
# X Y Z CHARGE MIN DIST ATOMIC VOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4870.9289 1.5817 34.9213
2 0.0000 0.0000 5.9163 4870.9289 1.5817 34.9213
3 1.8360 1.0600 2.9581 4870.9289 1.5817 34.1679
4 1.8360 -1.0600 8.8744 4870.9289 1.5817 34.1679
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS: 19483.71572
::::::::::::::
ACF.valence.dat
::::::::::::::
# X Y Z CHARGE MIN DIST ATOMIC VOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17.6174 1.5817 35.7103
2 0.0000 0.0000 5.9163 17.6174 1.5817 35.7103
3 1.8360 1.0600 2.9581 17.3975 1.4520 33.3789
4 1.8360 -1.0600 8.8744 17.3975 1.4520 33.3789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS: 70.02985
With summarization of information above, two questions are proposed:
1. What is the reason causing the overstimation of the Ce and Pr core charges?
2. Why is the Pr valence charges around 17.4 or 17.6 instead of around 13, the number of valence electrons in Pr PAW_PBE POTCAR?
Your kind response is highly appreciated.
Overestimation of Ce and Pr Core Charges in Their Bulk
Moderator: moderators
Re: Overestimation of Ce and Pr Core Charges in Their Bulk
I should add here, this problem is not dependent on the U.