LASPH-tag in VASP 5.2

Queries about input and output files, running specific calculations, etc.


Moderators: Global Moderator, Moderator

Post Reply
Message
Author
Danny
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:35 pm
License Nr.: 5-532
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Contact:

LASPH-tag in VASP 5.2

#1 Post by Danny » Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:32 pm

dear all,

When reading the VASP manual on the LASPH-tag( here ) I got confused.
It says:

Default .FALSE.
...

For VASP.5.X the aspherical contributions are properly accounted for in the Kohn-Sham potential as well. This is essential for accurate total energies and band structure calculations for f-elements (e.g. ceria), all 3d-elements (transition metal oxides), and magnetic atoms in the 2nd row (B-F atom).
* Does this mean that there are new potentials (POTCAR-files) for VASP.5.X? If so, what is the generation date of the most recent potentials I should look for.
OR
* does this mean that for VASP.5.X the default value is true instead of false?

thx,
Danny
<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited ]</span>
Last edited by Danny on Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

forsdan
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:07 am
License Nr.: 173
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

LASPH-tag in VASP 5.2

#2 Post by forsdan » Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:40 pm

Neither. If you read the manual again, you will see that in VASP4.6 the contributions were only included in the total energy after self-consistency has been reached (if LASPH = .TRUE.), while in VASP5.2 the corrections are included in the Kohn-Sham potential during self-consistency (if LASPH = .TRUE.). The default in both VASP versions are LASPH = .FALSE.

Cheers,
/Dan
Last edited by forsdan on Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Danny
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:35 pm
License Nr.: 5-532
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Contact:

LASPH-tag in VASP 5.2

#3 Post by Danny » Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:01 pm

thanks, for setting that straight.
At first glance I also interpreted it that way, but if you read it a few times you start wondering if ppl might not have intended it to mean something different...and you end up posting here :)

cheers
Danny
Last edited by Danny on Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply