Evaluating optimal U for 3d transition-metal oxides within the SCAN+U framework

Olivia Y. Long, Gopalakrishnan Sai Gautam, and Emily A. Carter
Phys. Rev. Materials 4, 045401 – Published 8 April 2020
PDFHTMLExport Citation

Abstract

Redox-active 3d transition-metal oxides (TMOs) are crucial ingredients for multiple sustainable energy applications, including solar cells, batteries, catalysis, and solar thermochemical water splitting. However, any predictive modeling, such as that employing density functional theory, needs to describe accurately the energetics of redox reactions involving transition metals, if new candidate materials are to be identified in a reliable fashion. Recently, we demonstrated that the state-of-the-art, strongly constrained and appropriately normed (SCAN) exchange-correlation functional requires a Hubbard U correction (determined, e.g., from experimental oxidation enthalpies) to reproduce the ground-state structure, lattice parameters, magnetic moments, and electronic properties of Ce-, Mn-, and Fe-based oxides. In the present work, we extend our approach to identify optimal U values for other 3d TMOs, specifically Ti, V, Cr, Co, Ni, and Cu, within the SCAN+U framework. We determine optimal U values of 2.5, 1.0, 3.0, and 2.5 eV for Ti, V, Co, and Ni oxides, respectively, while Cr and Cu oxides best reproduce redox thermodynamics without any U correction at all. While the U values required for Ti, V, Co, and Ni are lower than those needed within the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) + U or local density approximation (LDA) + U approaches, inclusion of U makes non-negligible improvements in ground-state property evaluations of these oxides. Here we also validate our optimal U values by performing a number of transferability checks for each 3d material. A SCAN+U framework (with an appropriately determined U) therefore is needed to assess accurately the ground-state energies and qualitatively consistent electronic structures for (most) first-row TMOs.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
3 More
  • Received 4 January 2020
  • Revised 13 February 2020
  • Accepted 2 March 2020

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.4.045401

©2020 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics

Authors & Affiliations

Olivia Y. Long1, Gopalakrishnan Sai Gautam2, and Emily A. Carter2,3,*

  • 1Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
  • 2Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-5263, USA
  • 3Office of the Chancellor and Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Box 951405, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095-1405, USA

  • *eac@ucla.edu

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

Supplemental Material (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 4, Iss. 4 — April 2020

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Materials

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×