<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' ><tr><td valign='top' style='font: inherit;'><P>Dear all</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I calculated the lattice constant of BaTiO3 using GGA. However, the calculated lattice constant ( 3.980 angstrom) is SMALLER than experimental results (4.012 angstrom). So is this result reasonable?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>The GGA results of SrTiO3 is ok, 3.928 angstrom vs expermental result 3.905. As SrTiO3 and BaTiO3 both contain Ti and O, I calculated lattice constant of bulk metal Ba as a test, and the GGA results (5.014 angstrom for bcc cell) is also smaller than experimental one (5.019).</P>
<P> </P>
<P>So is there something wrong with my calculation? Or GGA does underestimate the lattice constant of some metals, such as reported in Computer Coupling of Phase Diagrams and Thermochemistry 28(2004)79-90 ?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>The input file is attached below. Thank you very much for your help </P>
<P>Ruizhi <BR></P>
<P>===========input file of BaTiO3===============</P>
<P>&control<BR> calculation = 'vc-relax'<BR> restart_mode = 'from_scratch'<BR> prefix = 'bto'<BR> pseudo_dir = '~/pseudo/'<BR> outdir = './tmp/'<BR> /<BR> &system<BR> ibrav=1<BR> celldm(1)=7.584<BR> nat=5<BR> ntyp=3<BR> ecutwfc=30.0<BR> occupations = 'smearing'<BR> degauss=0.01<BR> /<BR> &electrons<BR> conv_thr = 1e-8<BR> mixing_beta=0.3<BR> /<BR>&IONS<BR> ion_dynamics = 'damp',<BR> /<BR> &CELL<BR> cell_dynamics ='damp-pr'<BR> <BR> /<BR>ATOMIC_SPECIES<BR> Ba 137.33 Ba.pbe-nsp-van.UPF <BR> Ti 47.90
Ti.pbe-sp-van_ak.UPF<BR> O 15.99 O.pbe-van_ak.UPF<BR>ATOMIC_POSITIONS (crystal)<BR> Ba 0.000 0.000 0.000<BR> Ti 0.500 0.500 0.500<BR> O 0.000 0.500 0.500<BR> O 0.500 0.500 0.000<BR> O 0.500 0.000 0.500<BR>K_POINTS {automatic}<BR> 8 8 8 1 1 1</P>
<P>=============end input file=============</P>
<P><BR>========================<BR>Ruizhi Zhang, PhD<BR>School of Physics,Shandong University</P>
<P>Jinan, Peopel's Republic of China</P></td></tr></table><br>