4.5 Article

Frenkel pair formation energy for cubic Fe3O4 in DFT + U calculations

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICS-CONDENSED MATTER
Volume 34, Issue 47, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-648X/ac9440

Keywords

magnetite; ab initio; point defects; vacancy; interstitial

Funding

  1. RFBR
  2. ROSATOM [20-21-00159]
  3. HPC facilities at NRU HSE
  4. RFBR [0-32-90081]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, point defect formation energies for the cubic phase of magnetite are calculated using the DFT + U method, and the electronic structure calculations and atomic relaxation peculiarities are discussed. The results show that only the cubic phase model with a small band gap and charge disproportionation gives an adequate point defect formation energy.
The cubic phase of magnetite is stabilized above the Verwey transition temperature of about 120 K via a complex electron-phonon interaction that is still not very well understood. In this work using the DFT + U method we describe our attempt to calculate point defect formation energies for this cubic phase in the static approximation. The electronic structure calculations and atomic relaxation peculiarities are discussed in this context. Only the cubic phase model with a small band gap and charge disproportionation (Fe2+/Fe3+) gives an adequate point defect formation energies, not the semi-metallic model. The relaxation of the local defect atomic structure and the relaxation of the surrounding crystal matrix are analyzed. Point defects cause only local perturbations of atomic positions and charge-orbital order. After analysis of the supercell size effects for up to 448 atoms, we justify the use of small supercells with 56 atoms to make calculations for the cubic phase. The extensive experimental results of Dieckmann et al on defects in magnetite at high temperature are deployed for comparison of our DFT + U results on Frenkel pair formation energies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available