4.6 Article

Assessing the SCAN functional for itinerant electron ferromagnets

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
Volume 98, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.094413

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swedish e-Science Research Centre (SeRC)
  2. Swedish Research Council (VR) through the International Career Grant [20146336]
  3. Marie Sklodowska CurieActions, Cofund, Project [INCA 600398]
  4. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) through the Future Research Leaders 6 program
  5. Swedish Government Strategic Research Area in Materials Science on Functional Materials at Linkoping University (Faculty Grant SFO-Mat-LiU) [2009-00971]
  6. competence center FunMat-II - Vinnova [201605156]
  7. Russian Science Foundation [18-12-00492]
  8. Russian Science Foundation [18-12-00492] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Density functional theory is a standard model for condensed-matter theory and computational material science. The accuracy of density functional theory is limited by the accuracy of the employed approximation to the exchange-correlation functional. Recently, the so-called strongly constrained appropriately normed (SCAN) [Sun, Ruzsinszky, and Perdew, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036402 (2015)] functional has received a lot of attention due to promising results for covalent, metallic, ionic, as well as hydrogen- and van der Waals-bonded systems alike. In this work, we focus on assessing the performance of the SCAN functional for itinerant magnets by calculating basic structural and magnetic properties of the transition metals Fe, Co, and Ni. We find that although structural properties of bcc-Fe seem to be in good agreement with experiment, SCAN performs worse than standard local and semilocal functionals for fcc-Ni and hcp-Co. In all three cases, the magnetic moment is significantly overestimated by SCAN, and the 3d states are shifted to lower energies, as compared to experiments.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available