2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.susc.2015.03.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A benchmark database for adsorption bond energies to transition metal surfaces and comparison to selected DFT functionals

Abstract: benchmark database for adsorption bond energies to transition metal surfaces and comparison to selected DFT functionals, Surface Science (2015), ABSTRACTWe present a literature collection of experimental adsorption energies over late transition metal surfaces for systems where we believe the energy measurements are particularly accurate, and the atomic-scale adsorption geometries are particularly well established. We propose that this could become useful for benchmarking theoretical methods for calculating ads… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

34
611
1
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 457 publications
(647 citation statements)
references
References 85 publications
34
611
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…that included 10 chemisorption energies for CO adsorption and 8 energies for H 2 adsorption on different transition metals. However, Wellendorff et al . subsequently discovered that several of these energies had large calibration errors or were invalid and therefore they refined the tables and compiled an experimental database for 39 different adsorption reactions occurring on 10 different transition metal surfaces.…”
Section: Modelling Catalyst Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…that included 10 chemisorption energies for CO adsorption and 8 energies for H 2 adsorption on different transition metals. However, Wellendorff et al . subsequently discovered that several of these energies had large calibration errors or were invalid and therefore they refined the tables and compiled an experimental database for 39 different adsorption reactions occurring on 10 different transition metal surfaces.…”
Section: Modelling Catalyst Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…There is no well‐defined way to know what contribution to the adsorption energy really comes from van der Waals interactions and therefore it is not exactly know how to classify surface reactions into the two classes provided by Wellendorff et al . Different division of the experimental database was proposed by Duanmu et al .…”
Section: Modelling Catalyst Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, for future studies, we think it would be beneficial to expand and improve the current training and validation datasets; by for example, using the dispersion dataset S66x8 instead of S22x5, 94 including more solid state systems, 95 and reevaluate the chemisorption dataset. 96 For developing more accurate BEEF functionals, we also need to address the self-interaction error. This could be done by either introducing (screened) exact exchange or by using a self-interaction correction scheme, such as Hubbard +U or SIC.…”
Section: Summary Discussion and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All calculations were performed using plane‐wave DFT employing Vanderbilt ultrasoft pseudopotentials . The QUANTUM ESPRESSO code and the BEEF‐vdW exchange correlation functional were used for all calculations utilizing that this particular functional shows good performance in describing oxygen/transition metal systems . The plane‐wave cutoff and density cutoff were 500 eV and 5000 eV, respectively.…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%