4.6 Article

Superhard semiconducting C3N2 compounds predicted via first-principles calculations

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 78, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.235431

关键词

ab initio calculations; bonds (chemical); carbon compounds; crystal symmetry; elastic constants; electronic density of states; phonon dispersion relations; semiconductor materials; shear modulus; Vickers hardness

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [10574053, 10674053]
  2. NCET and EYTP of MOE of China
  3. National Basic Research Program of China [2005CB724400, 2001CB711201]
  4. Cheung Kong Scholars Programme of China
  5. Cultivation Fund of the Key Scientific and Technical Innovation Project [2004-295]
  6. Changjiang Scholar and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT0625]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper we introduce the two compounds alpha-C3N2 and beta-C3N2 with cubic symmetry, which are derived from a simple cubic carbon (C-20) reported recently. Our first-principles calculations show that both the solids are highly incompressible with high bulk modulus (380 and 343 GPa), large shear modulus G (365 and 368 GPa), great elastic constant C-44 (327 and 329 GPa), and high Vickers hardness H-V (both are 86 GPa), respectively. Accordingly we come to a conclusion that both the C3N2 phases are potentially superhard semiconductor materials. From the electronic partial density of states, it is found that the superhard character of the two phases is mainly attributed to the strong covalent bond between C and N. The alpha-C3N2 is dynamically stable at pressures below 1.2 GPa but unstable above 1.2 GPa because an optical branch softens to zero at the Gamma point. The alpha-C3N2 will transform into beta-C3N2 at about 1.2 GPa which is energetically more stable. Both phonon-dispersion and elastic constant calculations at zero and high pressures show that this beta-C3N2 remains mechanically and dynamically stable in a pressure range from 0 to at least 20 GPa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据