-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Problem with 2d fermi surface-vasp #168
Comments
Hi Subeen,
Pyprocar closes the surface when it is outside the first BZ; that is
correct. It is like in graphene; you can have 2 Dirac cones, one at K and
the other at -K. Or 1/3 of Dirac cone at each corner.
If you want a quick fix and a paper-ready figure, I recommend you apply the
C3 symmetry with Inkscape or with a similar tool to your figure. Save it as
PDF or SVG.
Could you share the folder (dropbox link or similar) to understand why
pyprocar chose one plotting option over the other
Best
Francisco
…On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 3:45 AM been0122 ***@***.***> wrote:
For developer,
Using the vasp code, I tried to analyze 2d fermi surface (001 plane).
But, pyprocar result is weird.
For the same vasprun.xml, I utilized other tool and result is appropriate.
(figure (1))
pyprocar1.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/78123966-d836-4441-9f0d-2510e5d7b960>
For the pyprocar, 2d fermi surface is weird.
fermi_bulk.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/44547702-19a4-4855-aa20-a715280d2d3f>
I used same vasprun.xml
why do this kind of difference occurs?
I want to resolve the issue because pyprocar is the most uesful tool for me
This is my INCAR and POSCAR and KPOINTS
INCAR(scf)
SYSTEM = MoP
ISTART = 0
ICHARG = 2
NPAR = 8
NELM = 700
ENCUT = 332
EDIFF = 1E-06
ISMEAR = 0; SIGMA = 0.026
ISYM = -1
#ALGO = All
ISPIN = 1
LSORBIT = .TRUE.
INCAR(nscf)
SYSTEM = MoP
ISTART = 0
ICHARG = 11
LWAVE = .FALSE.
NPAR = 8
NELM = 700
ENCUT = 332
EDIFF = 1E-06
ISMEAR = 0; SIGMA = 0.026
ISYM = -1
#ALGO = All
ISPIN = 1
LSORBIT = .TRUE.
LORBIT = 11
POSCAR
MoP
1.0
3.2383731134154243 -0.0000000000000000 -0.0000000000000000
-1.6191865567077122 2.8045133829909190 0.0000000000000000
0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 3.1933534270558410
Mo P
1 1
Direct
0.3333333429999996 0.6666666870000029 0.5000000000000000
-0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 -0.0000000000000000
KPOINTS(nscf) (for the scf 12 12 12)
Regular k-point mesh
0
Gamma
25 25 25
python code
pyprocar.fermi2D(code='vasp', mode='plain', color='black', savefig='fermi_bulk.png', fermi = 8.6202, dirname=data_dir)
Best regards,
Subeen
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#168>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAWJJSJ4ESXR52ZZQOP3773Z736JDAVCNFSM6AAAAABRP43OVOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGY2DMOJRGE3TENA>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
--
Francisco Munoz
Associate Professor
Faculty of Sciences,
Department of Physics
University of Chile
+562 29787414
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
For developer,
Using the vasp code, I tried to analyze 2d fermi surface (001 plane).
But, pyprocar result is weird.
For the same vasprun.xml, I utilized other tool and result is appropriate. (figure (1))
For the pyprocar, 2d fermi surface is weird.
I used same vasprun.xml
why do this kind of difference occurs?
I want to resolve the issue because pyprocar is the most uesful tool for me
This is my INCAR and POSCAR and KPOINTS
INCAR(scf)
INCAR(nscf)
POSCAR
KPOINTS(nscf) (for the scf 12 12 12)
python code
Best regards,
Subeen
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: