3.8 Article

Atom-projected and angular momentum resolved density of states in the ONETEP code

期刊

ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE
卷 1, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/2516-1075/ab34f5

关键词

density of states; projected density of states; linear scaling DFT; large scale DFT; local density of states

资金

  1. CNPq via the Science Without Borders Programme [CNPq: 206419/20147]
  2. EPSRC [EP/P02209X/1, EP/P022030/1]
  3. EPSRC [EP/P02209X/1, EP/P022030/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Local and angular momentum projected densities of states (DOS) are invaluable sources of information that can be obtained from density functional theory calculations. In this work, we describe a theoretical framework within ONETEP's linear-scaling DFT formalism that allows the calculation of local (atom-projected) and angular momentum projected density of states l-p-DOS. We describe four different bases that can be used for projecting the DOS with angular momentum resolution and perform a set of tests to compare them. We validate the results obtained with ONETEP's l-p-DOS against the plane-wave DFT code CASTEP. Comparable results between ONETEP's and CASTEP's charge spilling parameters are observed when we use pseudo-atomic orbitals as the projection basis sets. In general, the charge spilling parameters show remarkably low values for projections using non-contracted spherical waves as the angular momentum resolved basis. We also calculate the d-band and d-band centres for Pt atoms in (1 1 1) facets of cuboctahedral Pt nanoparticles of increasing size, which is an example of l-p-DOS application commonly used as an electronic descriptor in heterogeneous catalysis. Interestingly, the different projection bases lead to similar conclusions, showing the reliability of the implemented method for such studies. The implementation of these methods in a linear-scaling framework such as ONETEP provides another tool for analysing the electronic structure of complex nanostructured 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

3.8
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