2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0927-0256(02)00186-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

LDA+U calculated electronic and structural properties of NiO(001) and NiO(111) p(2×2) surfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
20
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
3
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, the enhancement of the O-2p character near the top of valence band with the Hubbard correction leads to the change of the insulating band gap character from Mott-Hubbard type (GGA calculations) to charge-transfer type (GGA+U calculations), which agrees well with the findings in previous works, both experimentally and theoretically [51,[54][55][56][61][62][63][64][65]. Although our calculation using the linear response approach [51,57] gives 4.45 eV for the value of U, we used the value of 5.4 eV in this work so that our work can be compared to previous theoretical works which use 5.4 eV for the U value [37,42,56,66,67]. We observe that our choice of 4.45 eV or 5.4 eV for the U parameter does not significantly influence the electronic structure including the magnetic moment and energy gap type.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus, the enhancement of the O-2p character near the top of valence band with the Hubbard correction leads to the change of the insulating band gap character from Mott-Hubbard type (GGA calculations) to charge-transfer type (GGA+U calculations), which agrees well with the findings in previous works, both experimentally and theoretically [51,[54][55][56][61][62][63][64][65]. Although our calculation using the linear response approach [51,57] gives 4.45 eV for the value of U, we used the value of 5.4 eV in this work so that our work can be compared to previous theoretical works which use 5.4 eV for the U value [37,42,56,66,67]. We observe that our choice of 4.45 eV or 5.4 eV for the U parameter does not significantly influence the electronic structure including the magnetic moment and energy gap type.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Various types of reconstructions and surface passivation have been reported both experimentally and theoretically for the NiO(111) surface. In particular, so-called Octopolar, 2×2-α, and Rt3 appear to be stable reconstruction phases of the (111) surface [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. Furthermore, hydrogenated and hydroxylated surfaces have been recently characterized in experiments using STM and THEED [38,39,44].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is very similar to what has been reported previously for several magnetic oxides. 4,32,33 The calculated structural parameters shown in Table I are calculated for the experimentally observed antiferromagnetic order ͑see Sec. III C͒.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The LDA+ U method has been successfully applied to describe the electronic structure of systems containing localized d and f electrons where LDA leads to qualitatively wrong results, 22 and recently it has also been applied to obtain structural parameters that are in better agreement with experimental data than the corresponding LDA results. 7,24,25 In this work, except where otherwise noted, the structural parameters were fixed to those obtained by full structural optimization using U = 3 eV and J = 0.8 eV ͑for Bi 2 FeCrO 6 and BiCrO 3 ͒ or J =1 eV ͑for BiFeO 3 ͒ for the treatment of the transition metal d orbitals. Then, the electronic structure and magnetic coupling constants were calculated as a function of U ͑and fixed J͒ in the range U = 3 eV-6 eV.…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%