4.8 Article

Semimetallic carbon honeycombs: new three-dimensional graphene allotropes with Dirac cones

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 2748-2754

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7nr07824b

关键词

-

资金

  1. University at Buffalo
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [21206049]
  3. Innovation Scientists and Technicians Team Construction Projects of Henan Province [yukerenzu[2017]1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Classic two-dimensional (2D) graphene possesses outstanding properties due to Dirac cone structures. When scaling up to three-dimensional (3D) structures, their high porosity and large surface-area-to-volume ratio made them have more promising engineering perspectives. However, the currently synthesized and density-functional-theory-predicted 3D graphene structures, termed as carbon honeycombs (CHCs), are metallic. Herein, we propose new families of stable semimetallic CHC structures, which have lower energies than the previous experimentally reported structure and they would be realized experimentally. Results from density functional theory (DFT) and tight binding (TB) model showed that multiple Dirac cones with massless Dirac Fermions are present in both pristine and strained CHCs. Dirac cones in pristine CHCs originated from interactions between sp(2)-hybridized carbon atoms along the zigzag direction (denoted as C-i(Z), i = alpha, beta,.), while strain-induced direction-dependent Dirac cones primarily stemmed from interactions (i) between the two C-alpha(Z) atoms bonded to a selected sp(3)-hybridized carbon atom or (ii) between C-i(Z) and C-alpha(A) (alpha carbon atoms at the armchair direction) atoms. The largest Fermi velocity achieved is 1.204 x 10(6) m s(-1), which is approximately 44.7% larger than that of graphene. These results open up a new direction in carbon-based 3D porous materials and these findings provide significant insights on numerous applications, ranging from nanoelectronics and nanomechanics to gas and liquid separations.

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