Pulay stress: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:07, 27 June 2024

Pseudopotential calculations are calculate the energy of a cell using a finite number of plane waves and a finite number of k-points. When comparing between cells of different sizes, i.e.g volume, this results in them each having different plane wave basis sets. This would be solved by using an infinite number of k-points and plane waves. In practice, a large enough plane wave energy cutoff and number of k-points leads to converged energies.^[1] However, when the basis set is too small, i.e. prematurely truncated, this results in discontinuities in the total energy between cells of varying volumes. These discontinuities between energy and volume creates stress that decreases the volume compared to fully converged calculations, due to the diagonal components of the stress tensor being incorrect. This is the "Pulay stress".^[2] Figures 1 and 2 shows these discontinuities for diamond for prematurely truncated energy cutoffs and k-point meshes, respectively, in comparison to converged curves. It may be corrected for using a few different methods in VASP.

Calculating in VASP

The Pulay stress may be corrected for in multiple ways. Generally, by calculating the relaxed structure with a large basis-set:

Set ENCUT to $1.3\times$ the default cutoff or PREC=High in VASP.4.4.
Re-run VASP with the default cutoff to obtain the final relaxed positions and cell parameters.

A good estimation for the Pulay stress is given in the OUTCAR file as a negative pressure:

 external pressure =    -100.29567 kB

This may be used to correct for the Pulay stress using PSTRESS, if volume relaxations are necessary.

Accurate bulk relaxations with internal parameters (one)

Generally, use a larger energy cutoff than the default. If volume relaxations are necessary, follow this procedure:

TWO:

Relax from starting structure (ISMEAR should be 0 or 1).
Start a second relaxation from previous CONTCAR file (re-relaxation).
As a final step, perform one more energy calculation using the tetrahedron method switched on (i.e. ISMEAR=-5), to obtain highly accurate energies (no relaxation for the final run). If there are still problems, try further increasing the energy cutoff.^[3]

If the default cutoff must be used for the relaxations, then the PSTRESS tag should be set in the INCAR file to evaluate the Pulay stress.

Calculate the 'external pressure' with a higher ENCUT. ===but how can that be done if they're not there first of all?===
Add PSTRESS to the INCAR.
Set it equal to the Pulay stress given by the 'external pressure' in the OUTCAR. === What OUTCAR? Need to say to use a larger ENCUT first. ===

From now on all STRESS output of VASP is corrected by simply subtracting PSTRESS. In addition, all volume relaxations will take PSTRESS into account. It should be said again, use PSTRESS only if increasing the cutoff is not a viable option for some reason.

Accurate bulk relaxations with internal parameters (two)

It is possible to avoid volume relaxation in many cases:

Relax the structure (cell shape and internal parameters) for a set of fixed volumes (ISIF=4).
Fit to an equation of state ^[4], e.g. Murnaghan.^[5] ^[6]

The outline for such a calculation is almost the same as in the previous section. But in this case, one has to do the calculations for a set of fixed volumes. At first sight, this seems to be much more expensive than method number one (outlined in the previous section). But in many cases, the additional costs are only small, because the internal parameters do not change very much from volume to volume. The following steps have to be done in these calculations:

Select one volume and relax from starting structure keeping the volume fixed (ISIF=4; ISMEAR=0 or 1).
Start a second relaxation (structure or electronic relaxation?) from the previous CONTCAR file (if the initial cell shape was reasonable this step can be skipped if the cell shape is kept fixed, you never have run VASP twice).
As a final step, perform one more energy calculation with the tetrahedron method switched on (ISMEAR=-5), to get very accurate unambiguous energies (no relaxation for the final run).

FAQ: Why is my energy vs. volume plot jagged

This is a very common question from people who start to do calculations with plane wave codes. There are two reasons why the energy vs. volume plot looks jagged:

Basis set incompleteness. The basis set is discrete and incomplete, and when the volume changes, additional plane waves are added. That causes small discontinuous changes in the energy.
- Solutions:
  - Use a larger plane wave cutoff: This is usually the preferred and simplest solution.
  - Use more k-points : this solves the problem, because the criterion for including a plane wave in the basis set is $\vert {\bf {G}}+{\bf {k}}\vert <{\bf {G}}_{\rm {cut}}$ . This means at each k-point a different basis set is used, and additional plane waves are added at each k-point at different volumes. In turn, the energy vs. volume curve becomes smoother.
A second possible reason for the jagged E(V) curve is the use of PREC=Normal. For PREC=Accurate the FFT grids are chosen such that ${\bf {H}}\vert \phi >$ ${{\bf {H}}}\vert \phi >$ is exactly evaluated. For PREC=Normal the FFT grids are set to 3/4 of the value that is required for an exact evaluation of ${\bf {H}}\vert \phi >$ ${{\bf {H}}}\vert \phi >$ . This introduces small errors because when the volume changes the FFT grids change discontinuously. In other words, at each volume a different FFT grid is used, causing the energy to jump discontinuously between different volumes.
- Solutions:
  - Use PREC=Accurate, or increase the plane wave cutoff.
  - Set your FFT grids manually, and choose the one that is used per default for the largest volume (obviously a laborious solution).

References

↑ G. P. Francis and M. C. Payne, Finite basis set corrections to total energy pseudopotential calculations, J. Condens. Matter Phys. 2, 4395 (1990).
↑ The Pulay stress and related problems affect the behavior of VASP and any plane wave code in several ways: First, it evidently affects the stress tensor calculated by VASP, i.e. the diagonal components of the stress tensor are incorrect, unless the energy cutoff is very large (ENMAX=1.3 *default is usually a safe setting to obtain a reliable stress tensor). In addition, it should be noted that all volume/cell shape relaxation algorithms implemented in VASP work with a constant basis set. In that way, all energy changes are strictly consistent with the calculated stress tensor, and this, in turn, results in an underestimation of the equilibrium volume unless a large plane wave cutoff is used. Keeping the basis set constant during relaxations has also some strange effect on the basis set. Initially, all G-vectors within a sphere are included in the basis. If the cell shape relaxation starts the direct and reciprocal lattice vectors change. This means that although the number of reciprocal G-vectors in the basis is kept fixed, the length of the G-vectors changes, changing indirectly the energy cutoff. Or to be more precise, the shape of the cutoff region becomes an ellipsoid. Restarting VASP after a volume relaxation causes VASP to adopt a new "spherical" cutoff sphere and thus the energy changes discontinuously. One thing which is important to understand is that problems due to the Pulay stress can often be neglected if only volume conserving relaxations are performed. This is because the Pulay stress is usually almost uniform and it, therefore, changes the diagonal elements of the stress tensor only by a certain constant amount (see below). In addition, many calculations have shown that Pulay stress-related problems can also be reduced by performing calculations at different volumes using the same energy cutoff for each calculation (this is what VASP does by default) and fitting the final energies to an equation of state. This of course implies that the number of basis vectors is different at each volume. Calculations with many plane-wave codes have shown that such calculations yield reliable results for the lattice constants and the bulk modulus and other elastic properties even at relatively modest energy cutoffs. Constant energy cut-off calculations are less prone to errors caused by the basis set incompleteness than constant basis set calculations. But it should be kept in mind that volume changes and cell shape changes must be rather large in order to obtain reliable results from this method because within the limit of very small distortions the energy changes obtained with this method are equivalent to those obtained from the stress tensor and are therefore affected by the Pulay stress. Only volume changes of the order of 5-10 % guarantee that the errors introduced by the basis set incompleteness are averaged out.
↑ A few things should be remarked here: never used the energy obtained at the end of a relaxation run, if you allow for cell shape relaxations (the final basis set might not correspond to the desired spherical cutoff sphere). Instead, perform one additional static run after completing the relaxation. If the relaxation will yield a structure with reasonably small structural "errors", the final error in the energy of step 3 is only of second-order (with respect to the structural errors). If you take the energy directly from the relaxation run, errors are usually significantly larger. Another important point is that the most reliable results for the relaxation are obtained if the starting cell parameters are very close to the final cell parameters. If different runs yield different results, then the one run that started from the configuration, which was closest to the relaxed structure, is the most reliable one.
↑ The reason why this method is better than volume relaxation is that the Pulay stress is almost isotropic, and thus adds only a constant value to the diagonal elements of the stress tensor. Therefore, the relaxation for a fixed volume will yield highly accurate structures.
↑ Murnaghan Equation of State, www.wikipedia.org (2024)
↑ This has the advantage of also providing the bulk modulus, and we have found in the past that it may be used safely with the defauly cut-off.

[payne:francis:1990-1] G. P. Francis and M. C. Payne, Finite basis set corrections to total energy pseudopotential calculations, J. Condens. Matter Phys. 2, 4395 (1990).

[2] The Pulay stress and related problems affect the behavior of VASP and any plane wave code in several ways: First, it evidently affects the stress tensor calculated by VASP, i.e. the diagonal components of the stress tensor are incorrect, unless the energy cutoff is very large (ENMAX=1.3 *default is usually a safe setting to obtain a reliable stress tensor). In addition, it should be noted that all volume/cell shape relaxation algorithms implemented in VASP work with a constant basis set. In that way, all energy changes are strictly consistent with the calculated stress tensor, and this, in turn, results in an underestimation of the equilibrium volume unless a large plane wave cutoff is used. Keeping the basis set constant during relaxations has also some strange effect on the basis set. Initially, all G-vectors within a sphere are included in the basis. If the cell shape relaxation starts the direct and reciprocal lattice vectors change. This means that although the number of reciprocal G-vectors in the basis is kept fixed, the length of the G-vectors changes, changing indirectly the energy cutoff. Or to be more precise, the shape of the cutoff region becomes an ellipsoid. Restarting VASP after a volume relaxation causes VASP to adopt a new "spherical" cutoff sphere and thus the energy changes discontinuously. One thing which is important to understand is that problems due to the Pulay stress can often be neglected if only volume conserving relaxations are performed. This is because the Pulay stress is usually almost uniform and it, therefore, changes the diagonal elements of the stress tensor only by a certain constant amount (see below). In addition, many calculations have shown that Pulay stress-related problems can also be reduced by performing calculations at different volumes using the same energy cutoff for each calculation (this is what VASP does by default) and fitting the final energies to an equation of state. This of course implies that the number of basis vectors is different at each volume. Calculations with many plane-wave codes have shown that such calculations yield reliable results for the lattice constants and the bulk modulus and other elastic properties even at relatively modest energy cutoffs. Constant energy cut-off calculations are less prone to errors caused by the basis set incompleteness than constant basis set calculations. But it should be kept in mind that volume changes and cell shape changes must be rather large in order to obtain reliable results from this method because within the limit of very small distortions the energy changes obtained with this method are equivalent to those obtained from the stress tensor and are therefore affected by the Pulay stress. Only volume changes of the order of 5-10 % guarantee that the errors introduced by the basis set incompleteness are averaged out.

[3] A few things should be remarked here: never used the energy obtained at the end of a relaxation run, if you allow for cell shape relaxations (the final basis set might not correspond to the desired spherical cutoff sphere). Instead, perform one additional static run after completing the relaxation. If the relaxation will yield a structure with reasonably small structural "errors", the final error in the energy of step 3 is only of second-order (with respect to the structural errors). If you take the energy directly from the relaxation run, errors are usually significantly larger. Another important point is that the most reliable results for the relaxation are obtained if the starting cell parameters are very close to the final cell parameters. If different runs yield different results, then the one run that started from the configuration, which was closest to the relaxed structure, is the most reliable one.

[4] The reason why this method is better than volume relaxation is that the Pulay stress is almost isotropic, and thus adds only a constant value to the diagonal elements of the stress tensor. Therefore, the relaxation for a fixed volume will yield highly accurate structures.

[murnaghan:web-5] Murnaghan Equation of State, www.wikipedia.org (2024)

[6] This has the advantage of also providing the bulk modulus, and we have found in the past that it may be used safely with the defauly cut-off.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 The outline for such a calculation is almost the same as in the previous section. But in this case, one has to do the calculations for a set of fixed volumes. At first sight, this seems to be much more expensive than method number one (outlined in the previous section). But in many cases, the additional costs are only small, because the internal parameters do not change very much from volume to volume. The following steps have to be done in these calculations:
 *Select one volume and relax from starting structure keeping the volume fixed ({{TAG|ISIF}}=4; {{TAG|ISMEAR}}=0 or 1).
-*Start a second relaxation from the previous {{TAG|CONTCAR}} file (if the initial cell shape was reasonable this step can be skipped if the cell shape is kept fixed, you never have run VASP twice).
+*Start a second relaxation (structure or electronic relaxation?) from the previous {{TAG|CONTCAR}} file (if the initial cell shape was reasonable this step can be skipped if the cell shape is kept fixed, you never have run VASP twice).
 *As a final step, perform one more energy calculation with the tetrahedron method switched on ({{TAG|ISMEAR}}=-5), to get very accurate unambiguous energies (no relaxation for the final run).