Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-xkcpr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:10:19.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of band -fitting and Wannier-based model construction for WSe2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2020

James Sifuna Open the ORCID record for James Sifuna [Opens in a new window] ,
Pablo García-Fernández ,
George S. Manyali ,
George Amolo  and
Javier Junquera
James Sifuna*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y Física de la Materia Condensada, Universidad de Cantabria, Cantabria Campus Internacional, Avenida de los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Spain. Department of Natural Science, The Catholic University of Eastern Africa, 62157 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya. Materials Modeling Group, Department of Physics and Space Sciences, The Technical University of Kenya, 52428-00200, Nairobi, Kenya.
Pablo García-Fernández
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y Física de la Materia Condensada, Universidad de Cantabria, Cantabria Campus Internacional, Avenida de los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Spain.
George S. Manyali
Affiliation:
Computational and Theoretical Physics Group (CTheP), Department of Physical Sciences, Kaimosi Friends University College, 385-50309, Kaimosi, Kenya.
George Amolo
Affiliation:
Materials Modeling Group, Department of Physics and Space Sciences, The Technical University of Kenya, 52428-00200, Nairobi, Kenya.
Javier Junquera
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y Física de la Materia Condensada, Universidad de Cantabria, Cantabria Campus Internacional, Avenida de los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Spain.
*
*(Email: sifunajames@gmail.com)
Get access

Abstract

Transition metal dichalcogenide materials MX2 (M = Mo;W;X = S; Se) are being thoroughly studied due to their novel two-dimensional structure, that is associated with exceptional optical and transport properties. From a computational point of view, Density Functional Theory simulations perform very well in these systems and are an indispensable tool to predict and complement experimental results. However, due to the time and length scales where even the most efficient DFT implementations can reach today, this methodology suffers of stringent limitations to deal with finite temperature simulations or electron-lattice coupling when studying excitation states: the unit cells required to study, for instance, systems with thermal fluctuations or large polarons would require a large computational power. Multi-scale techniques, like the recently proposed Second Principles Density Functional Theory, can go beyond these limitations but require the construction of tight-binding models for the systems under investigation. In this work, we compare two such methods to construct the bands of WSe2. In particular, we compare the result of (i) Wannier-based model construction with (ii) the band fitting method of Liu et al.,[1] where the top of the valence band and the bottom of the conduction band are modeled by three bands symmetrized to have mainly Tungsten dz2, dxy and dx2-y2character. Our results emphasize the differences between these two approaches and how band fitting model construction leads to an overestimation of the localization of the real-space basis in a tight-binding representation.

Keywords

2D materials
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 5 , Issue 44: Nanoscale and Quantum Materials , 2020 , pp. 2281 - 2290
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

Liu, Gui-Bin, Shan, Wen-Yu, Yao, Yugui, Wang, Yao and Xiao, Di, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085433 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Jason S., Wu, Sanfeng, Yu, Hongyi, Ghimire, Nirmal J., Jones, Aaron M., Grant, Aivazian, Yan, Jiaqiang, Mandrus, David G., Xiao, Di, Wang, Yao and Xu, Xiaodong, Nat Commun 4, 1474 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SefaattinTongay, , Ataca, Jian Zhou Can, Lo, Kelvin, Matthews, Tyler S., Li, Jingbo, Je_rey, C. Grossman, JunqiaoWu, Nano Lett., 12, 11, 5576-5580 (2012).Google Scholar
Zeng, Hualing, Liu, Gui-Bin, Dai, Junfeng, Yan, Yajun, Zhu, Bairen, He, Ruicong, Lu, Xie, Xu, Shijie, Chen, Xianhui,Wang, Yao and Cui, Xiaodong, Scienti_c Reports 3, 1608 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Ming-Wei, Liu, Lezhang, Lan, Qing, Tan, Xuebin, Dhindsa, Kulwinder S, Zeng, Peng, Naik, Vaman M, Cheng, Mark MingCheng and Zhou, Zhixian, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 45345102 (2012).Google Scholar
Bao, Wenzhong, Cai, Xinghan, Kim, Dohun, Sridhara, Karthik & Fuhrer, Michael S., Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 042104(2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larentis, Stefano, Fallahazad, Babak & Tutuc, Emanuel,Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 223104 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Xin, Zhao, Yanyuan, Zhang, Jun, Toh, Minglin, Kloc, Christian, QihuaXiong, & Quek, Su Ying, Phys. Rev. B,88, 195313 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha, Rafael de Alencar, Wiliam Ferreira da Cunhaand Luiz Antonio Ribeiro Jr., J. Mol. Modeling 25, 290 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giustino, Feliciano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015003 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, J. C. and Koster, G. F., Phys. Rev. 94, 1498 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David Brown, Ian, Chem. 109, 12, 6858-6919 (2009).Google Scholar
Giese, T. J. and York, D. M., TheorChem Acc. 131, 1145(2012).Google Scholar
Spaek, J., Phys. Rev. B 37, 533 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, W., Vanderbilt, David, and Rabe, K. M., Phys. Rev.B 52, 6301 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Fernandez, Pablo, Wojde, Jacek C., Jorge, Iiguez,and Junquera, Javier, Phys. Rev. B 93, 195137 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
C Wojde, Jacek, Hermet, Patrick, Ljungberg, Mathias P,Ghosez, Philippe and Jorge, iguez, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 305401 (2013).Google Scholar
Mosto_, A. A., Yates, J. R., Lee, Y.-S., Souza, I., Vanderbilt, D., and Marzari, N., Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 685(2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soler, Jose M., Artacho, Emilio, Gale, Julian D., AlbertoGarcia, , Junquera, Javier, Ordejon, Pablo, SanchezPortal, Daniel, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 2745 (2002).Google Scholar
Nicola Marzari, , Mosto, Arash A., Jonathan, R. Yates, IvoSouza, and Vanderbilt, David, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perdew, John P., Burke, Kieron, and Ernzerhof, Matthias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1396 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinman, Leonard and Bylander, D. M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1425 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troullier, N. and Martins, Jos Lus, Phys. Rev. B 43, 1993 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junquera, Javier, Paz, Oscar, Sanchez-Portal, Daniel, and Artacho, Emilio, Phys. Rev. B 64, 235111 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monkhorst, Hendrik J. and Pack, James D., Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, Juana and Soler, Jos_e M., Phys. Rev. B 45, 13891 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCALE-UP webpage https://www.secondprinciples.unican.es/. (Accessed 4 February 2020)Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, Swastibrata and Singh, Abhishek K., Phys. Rev. B 86, 075454 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar