4.4 Article

Systematic Study of the Effect of HSE Functional Internal Parameters on the Electronic Structure and Band Gap of a Representative Set of Metal Oxides

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 781-789

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24744

关键词

metal oxides; band gap; density functional theory; Hartree-Fock exchange; screen parameter; HSE functional

资金

  1. Spanish MINECO/FEDER [CTQ2015-64618-R]
  2. Universitat de Barcelona
  3. Red Espaonola de Supercomputacioon
  4. COMPHOTOCAT project of the Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe (PRACE) [2014112608]
  5. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (NOMAD Center of Excellence project) [676580]
  6. MINECO [RYC-2012-10129]
  7. Generalitat de Catalunya [2014SGR97]
  8. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [2012M3C1A6035359]
  9. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2014R1A6A3A03056449]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of the amount of Hartree-Fock mixing parameter (a) and of the screening parameter (w) defining the range separated HSE type hybrid functional is systematically studied for a series of seven metal oxides: TiO2, ZrO2, CuO2, ZnO, MgO, SnO2, and SrTiO3. First, reliable band gap values were determined by comparing the optimal a reproducing the experiment with the inverse of the experimental dielectric constant. Then, the effect of the w in the HSE functional on the calculated band gap was explored in detail. Results evidence the existence of a virtually infinite number of combinations of the two parameters which are able to reproduce the experimental band gap, without a unique pair able to describe the full studied set of materials. Nevertheless, the results point out the possibility of describing the electronic structure of these materials through a functional including a screened HF exchange and an appropriate correlation contribution. (C) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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