Quastion about K-points and energy cutoff

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter omaralrawi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Graphene
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between K-points and energy cutoff in the context of Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations, specifically regarding their implications for lattice constants and energy minimization. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects of K-point selection and energy cutoff, particularly in relation to materials like GaAs and graphene.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the optimal number of K-points for accurate results in lattice constant and energy minimization using DFT.
  • Another participant suggests that for pseudopotential methods, fewer K-points may suffice compared to all-electron calculations, proposing a 4x4x4 grid for VASP in insulator calculations.
  • A different participant questions the rationale behind the adequacy of 4x4x4 for insulators, noting that 1x1x1 is often sufficient for atomic or molecular systems.
  • Concerns are raised about the periodic boundary conditions and the relationship between K-points and the number of primitive cells, with a participant wondering why metals require more K-points than insulators or semiconductors.
  • Another participant clarifies that energy cutoff is not directly related to K-points, describing it as a technical aspect associated with plane wave basis and G points.
  • It is noted that for atomic and molecular calculations, a 1x1x1 K-point grid may be adequate due to the weak K dependence of the density and wavefunction.
  • Participants discuss the terminology differences, with one suggesting that lowercase 'k' may correspond to uppercase 'K' in the context of crystal momentum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate number of K-points for various systems, with no consensus reached on the optimal values or the relationship between K-points and energy cutoff. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific conditions under which different K-point selections are justified.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence of K-point selection on the type of calculation (insulator vs. metal) and the nature of the system (atomic vs. molecular), indicating that assumptions about periodicity and interactions may influence the choice of K-points.

omaralrawi
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Dear All,

I have three questions about the relation between the K-points and energy cutoff. The first one is : how many k points should I use in my theoretical calculation to get a good result in lattice constant and the converge of Emin especially for using DFT? The second one is : What is the relation in K-point and energy cutoff and is there any equation that can I use to describe this relation? How can I calculate this relation for graphene?

I have used in my calculation GaAs to gain an accurate result.

Regards.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Cindy ChemComp
Physics news on Phys.org
Which software are you using? Seems like planewave based DFT calculation, I guess.

(1) if using pseodupotential, then less K points can be used as compared with all-electron calculations. For VASP and insulator calculation, 4*4*4 might be good enough. Of course you can always use more K points to test K point convergence. You can refer to the vasp manual to find more information

(2) Energy cutoff has nothing to do with K point. Energy cutoff is related to so-called G points, plane wave basis, and their relationship is simply E_cutoff=h_bar^2 G_cutoff^2/2m_e.

(3) Energy cutoff is different from the dispersion relation relating K to E. Energy cutoff in a DFT software is more a technical trick than a physically meaningful quantity.
 
bsmile said:
Which (1) if using pseodupotential, then less K points can be used as compared with all-electron calculations. For VASP and insulator calculation, 4*4*4 might be good enough.

Here is a question making me feel puzzled.
Actually,I don't know very clear why 4*4*4 might be good enough for insulator,especially for atomic or molecular system,generally, 1*1*1 is enough.
For k points (lowercase,k),it should perform the periodic boundary condition. In my opinion,the number of k points is just equal to N1*N2*N3. Whatever the system is insulator or molecular,they need to be calculated through periodic boundary condition (for molecular,say,supercell).
Because the calculation is always made in a primitive cell (or,supercell),in other words, the number of k points stands for the number of primitive cells. But ,Why should the number of k-points for metals be more than insulator or semicoductor ? And why 1*1*1 for molecular (just one k point)?
 
The VASP software manual might address your question better. For insulator, there is no band around Fermi surface, thus K space sampling can be sparse.

For atom and molecule calculation, you do only need 1*1*1 with a very big unit cell, which means two nearby atoms/molecules are separated faraway such that their interaction is tiny. Why 1*1*1 is enough is because the K dependence of density/wavefunction/potential has very weak dependence on K (imagine the dispersion for a single atom in K space, which is basically flat).

I think lowercase k in your language is similar to G in my language (VASP). We might use the same uppercase K to denote crystal momentum within the 1st Broullin zone.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K