4.8 Article

Polymorphism of bulk boron nitride

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau5832

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council's Future Fellowship funding scheme [FT140100135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Boron nitride (BN) is a material with outstanding technological promise due to its exceptional thermochemical stability, structural, electronic, and thermal conductivity properties, and extreme hardness. Yet, the relative thermodynamic stability of its most common polymorphs (diamond-like cubic and graphite-like hexagonal) has not been resolved satisfactorily because of the crucial role played by kinetic factors in the formation of BN phases at high temperatures and pressures (experiments) and by competing bonding and electrostatic and many-body dispersion forces in BN cohesion (theory). This lack of understanding hampers the development of potential technological applications and challenges the boundaries of fundamental science. Here, we use high-level first-principles theories that correctly reproduce all important electronic interactions (the adiabatic-connection fluctuation-dissipation theorem in the random phase approximation) to estimate with unprecedented accuracy the energy differences between BN polymorphs and thus overcome the accuracy hurdle that hindered previous theoretical studies. We show that the ground-state phase of BN is cubic and that the frequently observed hexagonal polymorph becomes entropically stabilized over the cubic at temperatures slightly above ambient conditions (T-c -> h = 335 +/- 30 K). We also reveal a low-symmetry monoclinic phase that is extremely competitive with the other low-energy polymorphs and that could explain the origins of the experimentally observed compressed h-BN phase. Our theoretical findings therefore should stimulate new experimental efforts in bulk BN and promote the use of high-level theories in modeling of technologically relevant van der Waals materials.

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

4.8
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