[Pw_forum] Problem regarding transition from indirect to direct bandgap for P doped Si
Mohammad Abu Raihan Miah
mraihanm at eng.ucsd.edu
Mon Aug 1 22:45:14 CEST 2016
Hi Stefano,
When I simulated for 54 atom Silicon and also for B doped Silicon(53+1),
indirect bandgap was found. Though in the result, the conduction band
minima is not in the correct position (i.e. not in 0.85 X, approximately in
0.65X).
For the simulation of 2 atoms, indirect bandgap is also found. The result
is correct (i.e. CBM is at 0.85X)
As underestimation of the bandgap value is well-known problem, it is also
found in both cases. But we are more interested in direct bandgap issue now.
Any suggestion regarding this will be a great help for me.
Thank you very much.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:40 AM, stefano de gironcoli <degironc at sissa.it>
wrote:
> Dear Mohammad,
>
> I suggest you do the following exercise:
> Compute the band structure of 54 atom of Si with a similar setting to the
> one of your present calculation. Does it have direct gap ? compute the DOS.
> Compute the band structure of Silicon in the 2-atom unit cell
> with celldm(1) = 10.2623467, k_points (automatic) set to 15 15 15 0 0 0
> Does it have a direct gap ? compute the DOS
> Compare total energy, band structure and DOS in the two cases.
> Which calculation is correct ?
>
> stefano
>
>
>
> On 01/08/2016 20:19, Mohammad Abu Raihan Miah wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently simulating band diagram for Phosphorus doped Silicon. I am
> using 53 Si atoms and 1 P atom for computation. When I computed the band
> diagram, it resulted in direct band gap, which is not true case for
> Silicon. I have not relaxed the system.
>
> My input file is as follows,
>
> &control
> calculation = 'scf',
> restart_mode='from_scratch',
> verbosity = 'high',
> prefix = 'Silicon_P_54_relax',
> tstress = .true.,
> tprnfor = .true.,
> pseudo_dir = '.',
> outdir = 'out_P_rel',
> wf_collect=.true.,
> max_seconds=10800,
> /
>
> &system
> ibrav=2,
> celldm(1) = 30.787040,
> nat=54,
> ntyp=2,
> ecutwfc=50,
> ecutrho=400.0d0,
> input_dft='PBE',
> nbnd=120,
> occupations='smearing',
> degauss=0.05,
> /
>
> &electrons
> diagonalization='david',
> mixing_mode = 'plain',
> mixing_beta = 0.7,
> conv_thr = 1.0d-6,
> /
>
> ATOMIC_SPECIES
> Si 28.085500 Si.pbe-n-rrkjus_psl.0.1.UPF
> P 30.973800 P.pbe-n-rrkjus_psl.0.1.UPF
>
> ATOMIC_POSITIONS (alat)
> Si 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
> ..................................
> P 0.083333 0.083333 0.083333
> .............................
> Si 0.750000 0.750000 0.750000
>
> K_POINTS (automatic)
> 5 5 5 0 0 0
>
> Could anyone please explain the reason behind this change from indirect to
> direct bandgap? Or any suggestion to solve this problem?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Best,
> --
> Mohammad Abu Raihan Miah
> PhD Student
> Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE)
> <http://www.ece.ucsd.edu/>
> University of California, San Diego <http://www.ucsd.edu/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pw_forum mailing listPw_forum at pwscf.orghttp://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pw_forum mailing list
> Pw_forum at pwscf.org
> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
>
--
Mohammad Abu Raihan Miah
PhD Student
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE)
<http://www.ece.ucsd.edu/>
University of California, San Diego <http://www.ucsd.edu/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quantum-espresso.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160801/98302540/attachment.html>
More information about the users
mailing list