Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - agoldsto

Pages: [1]
Hello, I have a zigzag germanene nanoribbon device and am able to calculate LDOS and PDOS in the transport (z) direction (results attached), but I am interested in the LDOS in the perpendicular (x) direction to show evidence of the quantum spin hall effect. However the LDOS calculations seem to automatically choose the transport direction and I can't figure out how to change that. Is it possible to do so in ATK? Any assistance is greatly appreciated, thank you

Hello, I'm trying to obtain an LDOS graph like the one shown below for edge passivated germanene nanoribbons. I've attached a picture of one of my nanoribbons passivated with Sulfur. I have extended the length by repeating the cell 10 times in the C direction, but I cannot select the bulk to device option. I only need Vds, no gate voltage required. I've looked into the issue, and my concern is the solutions I've found for creating the source and drain regions may change the nanoribbon by either removing the sulfur passivated atoms at the electrodes or required a different structure than armchair germanene. If my goal is to obtain an LDOS vs thickness graph for the attached nanoribbon, how should I approach this? Thank you[img]

Hello, I'm doing studies on edge passivation of Germanene Nanoribbons using a variety of elements. With Hydrogen Geometry optimization went smoothly, but I'm struggling to get a good result with Iodine as the passivating element. I'm using the same settings as I did for Hydrogen, that is:

- Rattle atoms prior to script generator
- In the New Calculator Block use: ATK-DFT, GGA-PBE Correlation, 75 Hartree density mesh cutoff, 1x21x21 k-points, Tight Tier 1 basis set (I have also tried double zeta polarized)
- In the geometry optimization block use: 0.01 Force Tolerance, 0.0005 Stress Tolerance, 200 steps, max step size of 0.5A, constrain cell in x direction

I have also tried adjusting the lattice parameters to increase size of unit cell prior to calculations and various force and stress tolerance values. I get different results, but all clearly incorrect. Any advice would be appreciated.

I've attached an image of the nanoribbon prior to rattling and optimization, and the post optimization result

I'm not sure I'm doing the geometry optimization correctly, as is it's taking more than a day and the school network times out so I can't complete my research. If it simply can take over 24 hours to complete, then there maybe nothing I can do. Most geometry optimizations I've done take a maximum of 10 hours put typically less than 1. I can give the exact conditions of the optimization I'm running, but if it simply takes that long, then my hands are tied. I'm wondering if there is a faster way to do it

Hello, I'm trying to see the impact of attaching OH to carbon nanotubes of various chiralities. I want to perform geometry optimization for the OH molecule as the carbon nanotube has already been relaxed, however I'm not sure what the best approach is, currently I'm doing DFT-LDA with dirichlet boundary conditions in the A and B direction with periodic in the C direction, and constraining all directions in geometry optimization. Again, I performed the relaxation on the nanotube before adding the OH group. Any assistance would be appreciated!

EDIT: Problem solved, thank you for the assistance

Hello, I'm doing research on Germanene nanoribbons. Germanene is predicted to have buckling of roughly 0.7 angstroms in the honeycomb lattice. When I performed geometry optimization on the Germanene Armchair nanoribbon from the plugin the buckling appeared and had the proper displacement. However when I do the same optimization on the zig zag armchair it remains flat, which I don't believe should be accurate. Do you know why this could be or what settings I should change to get the proper output? Below are pictures of the armchair and zigzag nanoribbon results and the calculation parameters. The pictures show the front and side view of the armchair nanoribbon post optimization and the zigzag nanoribbon before optimization. Post optimization is looks exactly the same except the hydrogen atoms have a 45 degree tilt to the left. It is still completely flat.

The calculation parameters for both optimizations were the same, ATK-DFT GGA with Tight Tier 1 as the basis set. For the geo optimization block I used a Force Tolerance of 0.01 eV/A and for the Stress Tolerance 0.0005 eV/A^3. Step size was 0.5 and the simulation was tested with the cell constrained in only the x direction and no constraints at all. Both provided the same result.

I tried the simulations using both DFT and Extended Huckle. Using your recommendations, they now provide the same bandgap, but all the bands are flat. I assume this is because the single cell of the nanoribbon is decoupled from the neighboring iterations?

I'm doing research on the properties of Germanene nanoribbons and encountered a result that my advisor found questionable. For the four atom AC nanoribbon, the bandgap is roughly 0.8eV, and we're trying to shrink that. However when I increase the width by a single atom, it decreases to 0.08eV. My advisor says this is too small to be accurate, and mentioned using the quantum mechanical model in ATK. It's not a problem I've been able to solve by hand, so what options are available for a more comprehensive band structure analysis? Where can I find information on adding the quantum mechanical model to my calculation, and does this bandgap seem reasonable? Any help would be appreciated.

For my bandstructure calculator, in the new calculator box I used the Extended Huckel with no SCF iteration and dirichlet boundary conditions for the regions bounded by hydrogen. For the bandstructure I used the simple bandstructure box and 200 points per segment. I shared pictures of my results below. I used geometry optimization to obtain the buckling, and share pictures of both the 4 atom nanoribbon and 5 atom one, with bandstructures for both.

Pages: [1]