4.6 Article

Towards a predictive first-principles description of solid molecular hydrogen with density functional theory

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 87, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.184107

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  2. LDRD Grant [13-LW-004]
  3. DOE [DE-FC02-06ER25794, DE-FG52-09NA29456]
  4. Italian Institute of Technology (IIT) under the SEED project [259 SIMBEDD]
  5. PRACE Project [2011050781]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the influence of the main approximations employed in density functional theory descriptions of the solid phase of molecular hydrogen near dissociation. We consider the importance of nuclear quantum effects on equilibrium properties and find that they strongly influence intramolecular properties, such as bond fluctuations and stability. We demonstrate that the combination of both thermal and quantum effects make a drastic change to the predicted optical properties of the molecular solid, suggesting a limited value to dynamical, e.g., finite-temperature predictions based on classical ions and static crystals. We also consider the influence of the chosen exchange-correlation density functional on the predicted properties of hydrogen, in particular, the pressure dependence of the band gap and the zero-point energy. Finally, we use our simulations to make an assessment of the accuracy of typically employed approximations to the calculation of the Gibbs free energy of the solid, namely the quasi-harmonic approximation for solids. We find that, while the approximation is capable of producing free energies with an accuracy of approximate to 10 meV, this is not enough to make reliable predictions of the phase diagram of hydrogen from first principles due to the small free energy differences seen between several potential structures for the solid; direct free energy calculations for quantum protons are required in order to make definite predictions.

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