2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.susc.2014.10.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermodynamic study of reconstructed crystal surfaces.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(32 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this work, we are interested in the neural network prediction of DFT calculations in low coordination environments rather than providing detailed study of LiF surfaces, which has been the work of previous studies. 32 Thus, optimization and testing of various minimum energy structures were not performed. We therefore note that the surface energies calculated here should not be taken as precise determination of values that should be compared to experimental values.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this work, we are interested in the neural network prediction of DFT calculations in low coordination environments rather than providing detailed study of LiF surfaces, which has been the work of previous studies. 32 Thus, optimization and testing of various minimum energy structures were not performed. We therefore note that the surface energies calculated here should not be taken as precise determination of values that should be compared to experimental values.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We note that this differs from other proposed (111) surfaces, such as the octopolar reconstructed surface where 1/4 of the atoms in the outermost layer and 3/4 of the atoms on the subsequent layer are removed. 32 The surface energies calculated from DFT are compared to the neural network in Table 1 for the (100), (110), (111) Li , and (111) F surfaces. The DFT-calculated surface energies ranged from 34.6 to 67.2 meV/Å 2 , representing a broad range of values.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the terminology universally accepted concerning epitaxy, when the lattice constants of phases A and B match, that is when (1 × 1)-A ≡ (1 × 1)-B, the interface is said to be coherent; when a relation such as (m × n)-A ≡ (k × s)-B exists, with m, n, k and s integers (and the supercell parameters are not too long on the lattice length scale), the interface is commensurate; otherwise it is incommensurate. Moreover, as widely discussed in some recent papers, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] crystal faces (hkl) A and (h′k′l′) B can show several surface terminations (e.g., different structures for the same surface). If the number of the surface terminations is p and r for (hkl) A and (h′k′l′) B , respectively, the number of possible interface configurations can be very high, p × r.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Here, there are two possible surfaces: one with Li-termination (111)Li and one with F-termination (111)F as shown in Figure 2b) and 2c). We note that this differs from other proposed (111) surfaces, such as the octopolar reconstructed surface where ¼ of the atoms in the outermost layer and ¾ of the atoms on the subsequent layer are removed [19]. The surface energies calculated from DFT are compared to neural network in Table 1 for the (100), ( 110) , (111)Li and (111)F surfaces.…”
Section: Pair Interactions Bulk Eos and Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%