Hi Nordland
I have tested your script with the BaTiO3, this model have 5 atoms.
the calculated bandstruture is attatched below.
for the cubic phase, both the conductiviey and DOS electron effectivemass gave 4.57579367772 me, but the experimental value for this phase is about 0.5 me.
and for the tetragonal phase, the
# ---> Conductivity = 0.487857138832 me
# ---> Density of states = 0.805148177393 me
I have two question:
firstly, from the bandstructure, the curvature at the CBM in G (0. 0. .0.) is almost the same, why the electron effectivemass have so large difference.
secondly, in the script, the experssion for the DOS effectivemass is
print '# ---> Density of states = %10s'%((MH)**(2.0/3.0) * (abs(ml._value()*mt1._value()*mt2._value()))**(1.0/3.0) * me)
,
but according to the paper you give us Paper with a note on conductivity effective mass.
http://mems.caltech.edu/courses/EE40%20Web%20Files/Supplements/01_Effective_Mass.pdf, it should be
Density of states = %10s'%((MH)**(3.0/2.0) * (abs(ml._value()*mt1._value()*mt2._value()))**(1.0/3.0) * me)
,
it will affect the result of Si, but has no influence on the BaTiO3 here.