2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.04.162
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

First-principles study of oxygen adsorption on Fe(110) surface

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

10
12
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
10
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The calculated surface energy 2.43 J/m 2 (2.41 J/m 2 [41]) is in very good agreement with experimental data (in parenthesis) and other theoretical results (2.37 J/m 2 [39]; 2.41 J/m 2 [27]). Our calculations yield a work function of 4.77 eV, very close to the experimental value (4.80 eV [42]) and those resulting from other calculations (4.76 eV [39], 4.72 eV [27]). In agreement with previous calculations, due to the reduced coordination the magnetic moment on surface Fe atoms of the topmost layer is enhanced to about 2.59 μ B .…”
Section: Clean Fe(110) Surfacesupporting
confidence: 87%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The calculated surface energy 2.43 J/m 2 (2.41 J/m 2 [41]) is in very good agreement with experimental data (in parenthesis) and other theoretical results (2.37 J/m 2 [39]; 2.41 J/m 2 [27]). Our calculations yield a work function of 4.77 eV, very close to the experimental value (4.80 eV [42]) and those resulting from other calculations (4.76 eV [39], 4.72 eV [27]). In agreement with previous calculations, due to the reduced coordination the magnetic moment on surface Fe atoms of the topmost layer is enhanced to about 2.59 μ B .…”
Section: Clean Fe(110) Surfacesupporting
confidence: 87%
“…For the Brillouin zone integrations a 12 × 12 × 12 Monkhorst-Pack grid of special k-points was used. The calculated equilibrium lattice constant, 2.830 Å, is in good agreement with experiment (2.866 Å [34]) and other theoretical results (e.g., 2.83 Å [33]; 2.836 [27]). The calculated bulk modulus (180 GPa) overestimates the measured value (172 GPa [35]) by less than 5% and is between that resulting from other DFT calculations (174 GPa [33]; 189 GPa [36]).…”
Section: Methods and Computational Detailssupporting
confidence: 72%
See 3 more Smart Citations