\centerslidesfalse
% skip for preparation
-%\ifnum1=0
+\ifnum1=0
% intro
\end{slide}
-%\fi
-
% fabrication
\begin{slide}
\end{slide}
+\fi
+
\begin{slide}
\headphd
\hrule
\begin{itemize}
\item Code: \textsc{vasp}
-\item Plane wave basis set
+\item Plane wave basis set | $E_{\text{cut}}=\unit[300]{eV}$
%$\displaystyle
%\Phi_i=\sum_{|G+k|<G_{\text{cut}}} c_{i,k+G} \exp{\left(i(k+G)r\right)}
%$\\
\end{slide}
-\end{document}
-\ifnum1=0
-
\begin{slide}
\footnotesize
\end{slide}
+\end{document}
+\ifnum1=0
+
\begin{slide}
\headphd
\end{document}
\fi
+
defect structures are obtained by creating a supercell of crystalline silicon
with periodic boundary conditions and temperature and pressure set to zero.
-the interstitial carbon or silicon atom is inserted followed by
-structural relaxation into a local minimum configuration.
+the interstitial carbon or silicon atom is inserted,
+for example at the tetrahedral or heexagonal site,
+followed by structural relaxation into a local minimum configuration.
next to the structure, defects can be characterized by formation energies,
which is defined by this formula, where the chemical potential
slide 11
-
+in the following, structures and formation energies
+of silicon self-interstitial defects are shown.
+the classical potential and ab initio method predict formation energies,
+which are within the same order of magnitude.
+however, discrepancies exist.
+quantum-mechanical results reveal the silicon 110 interstitial dumbbell (db)
+as the ground state closely followed by the hexagonal and tetrahedral
+configuration, which is the consensus view for silicon interstitials.
+in contrast, the ea potential favors the tetrahedral configuration,
+a known problem, which arises due to the cut-off ...
slide 12
slide 13