Skip to content
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

BUG: elastic stress tensor instability #987

Open
chtchelkatchev opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

BUG: elastic stress tensor instability #987

chtchelkatchev opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@chtchelkatchev
Copy link

After installing the latest version of atomate2, I noticed a big change in the results of elastic stress tensor calculations, compared to the results found in the previous version: diagonal elements of the elastic tensor increased by 15GPa in the latest automate2. MACE force field was used. 15GPa is a large mistake. Hopefully the issue has a solution. Files used for the calculation I attach. Of cause, I made other tests: the issue is stable.
results.tar.gz

@JaGeo
Copy link
Member

JaGeo commented Sep 18, 2024

Thank you very much for reporting the issue. We will try to track it down.

@gpetretto any ideas?

@JaGeo
Copy link
Member

JaGeo commented Sep 18, 2024

Or @esoteric-ephemera maybe? It could also be a stress problem again.

@chtchelkatchev
Copy link
Author

Here for comparison I present for the same system VASP calculation of elastic stress using https://github.com/prnvrvs/elastic_vasp, PBE functional, pseudopotentials with "semicores" (INCAR and
vasp_elastic.tar.gz
KPOINTS made using https://muellergroup.jhu.edu/K-Points.html attached):

second order coefficients are as follow:
C11_C12_I/= 40.36400509687549
C12/= 539.822847581932
C44/= 51.67496079672538

===== Methodology =====
Bulk=(C11_C12_II/) x 2/9
shear=(C11_C12_I/) x 1/2
C11=(3xbulk+4xshear)/3
C12=(3xbulk-2xshear)/3
C44=2/3 x C44/

C11= 146.8699695272352
C12= 106.50596443035973
C44= 34.44997386448359
bulk_modulus= 119.96063279598489

==== stiffness matrix ====

[[146.87 106.51 106.51 0. 0. 0. ]
[106.51 146.87 106.51 0. 0. 0. ]
[106.51 106.51 146.87 0. 0. 0. ]
[ 0. 0. 0. 34.45 0. 0. ]
[ 0. 0. 0. 0. 34.45 0. ]
[ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 34.45]]

check stability criteria
C11−C12 > 0 ; C11+2C12 > 0 ; C44 > 0

�[1m�[1;32m structure is mechanically stable�[0m
===== Polycrystalline Average =====
K_voigt= 119.96 GPa
K_reuss= 119.96 GPa
K_VRH= 119.96 GPa

G_voigt= 28.74 GPa
G_reuss= 26.86 GPa
G_VRH= 27.80 GPa

E_VRH= 77.42 GPa
nu_VRH= 0.39
Pugh ratio= 4.32

@JaGeo
Copy link
Member

JaGeo commented Sep 19, 2024

I have another question:

  • does this also happen with the default model in a similar way?

@chtchelkatchev
Copy link
Author

chtchelkatchev commented Sep 19, 2024

The default mace model, trained on MP, is very inaccurate, producing diagonal elements of the elastic tensor ~80GPa (old atomate2 version). There are no HEA alloys in MP or smth similar...

@esoteric-ephemera
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @chtchelkatchev: hard to say what the issue is when you're using a custom model. Is it possible that a concurrent update to mace-torch changed the behavior of your custom model?

For what it's worth, I get the same IEEE elastic tensor as your atomate15 results:

[[155.26919200503175, 116.78524306551743, 115.70601945984995, 0.321952086327638, -0.09031786462525584, 0.20932543394844486], [116.78524306551745, 155.75413141868546, 115.5687433938244, 0.2842888347738036, -0.1294715086539406, 0.41592329764601677], [115.70601945984998, 115.5687433938244, 156.92833870245556, 0.34971305863650415, 0.07430341175764595, 0.26944609523427265], [0.32195208632763817, 0.2842888347738036, 0.3497130586365042, 34.09329882576332, -0.3411876268440579, -0.4002136984038336], [-0.09031786462525584, -0.12947150865394053, 0.0743034117576459, -0.3411876268440579, 33.58993887719511, -0.2004357058455722], [0.20932543394844474, 0.4159232976460168, 0.2694460952342726, -0.4002136984038336, -0.20043570584557222, 33.523619543904275]]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants