2022
DOI: 10.1039/d2na00247g
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Insights into first-principles characterization of the monoclinic VO2(B) polymorph via DFT + U calculation: electronic, magnetic and optical properties

Abstract: We have studied the structural, electronic, magnetic, and optical properties of the VO2(B) polymorph using first-principles calculations based on density functional theory (DFT).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 129 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As the results of previous studies have underscored that the outcomes are substantially dependent on the magnitude of U, we tested different Hubbard U values for V-3d and O-2p. We set V-3d = 5.20 eV and O-2p = 0.95 eV since these parameters have shown very good agreement with the experimental results, as reported by Mohebbi et al (2022).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…As the results of previous studies have underscored that the outcomes are substantially dependent on the magnitude of U, we tested different Hubbard U values for V-3d and O-2p. We set V-3d = 5.20 eV and O-2p = 0.95 eV since these parameters have shown very good agreement with the experimental results, as reported by Mohebbi et al (2022).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Usually, the conventional DFT, adding a Hubbard U parameter representing the strong electron-electron interaction of strongly correlated materials, can cure the deficiencies of local or semilocal exchange-correlation functions and maintain relatively low computational cost. [41][42][43] As was reported, the accuracy of outcomes by DFT + U is tend to depend on the magnitude of U parameter. In the need of the correct description of strongly correlated system properties, it is necessary to determine a reliable U value firstly.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…The widely used approach reported in literature for choosing effective U is adjusting calculated results to fitting experimental data (for instance, fitting the experimental bandgaps, seeback effect or electrical conductivity). [42,44,45] On the other hand, several pure theoretical perspectives have also been developed to determine the U non-empirically, for example, the linear response method based on constrained DFT (CDFT) by Cococcioni and de Gironcoli1, [46] the constrained random-phase approximation (cRPA) method, [47] and self-consistent methods from the local electron density based on the Thomas-Fermi screening mode. [48] However, these methods have shortcomings more or less.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For this description, an LCAO basis set was adopted. 39,40 Normconserving Pseudo Dojo pseudopotentials 41 were used to describe the 1s 2 orbitals of C atoms. The energy cut-off was xed at 900 eV and Brillouin-zone integration was performed over a 50 × 50 × 1 k-point grid.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%