Quasiparticle ban structures an optical properties of straine monolayer MoS an WS Hongliang Shi 1, Hui Pan 1, Yong-Wei Zhang 1, an Boris I. Yakobson 1 Institute of High Performance Computing, A*STAR, Singapore 13863 Department of Mechanical Engineering an Materials Science, an Department of Chemistry, Rice University, Houston Texas 775 (Date: March 5, 13) arxiv:111.5653v [con-mat.mtrl-sci] Mar 13 The quasiparticle (QP) ban structures of both strainless an straine monolayer MoS are investigate using more accurate many boy perturbation GW theory an maximally localize Wannier functions (MLWFs) approach. By solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE) incluing excitonic effects on top of the partially self-consistent GW (scgw ) calculation, the preicte optical gap magnitue is in a goo agreement with available experimental ata. With increasing strain, the exciton bining energy is nearly unchange, while optical gap is reuce significantly. The scgw an BSE calculations are also performe on monolayer WS, similar characteristics are preicte an WS possesses the lightest effective mass at the same strain among monolayers Mo(S,Se) an W(S,Se). Our results also show that the electron effective mass ecreases as the tensile strain increases, resulting in an enhance carrier mobility. The present calculation results suggest a viable route to tune the electronic properties of monolayer transition-metal ichalcogenies (TMDs) using strain engineering for potential applications in high performance electronic evices. PACS numbers: 73..-f, 71..Nr, 71.35.-y I. INTRODUCTION Bulk TMDs consisting of two-imensional (D) sheets bone to each other through weak van er Waals forces have been stuie extensively owing to their potential applicationsin photocatalysis[1] an catalysis[, 3]. MoS, WS, MoSe, an WSe are examples of such TMDs. Recently, their D monolayer counterparts were successfully fabricate using micromechanical cleavage metho []. Since then, these monolayer materials have attracte significant attention [5 1]. FormonolayerMoS, astrongphotoluminescence(pl) peak at about 1.9 ev, together with peaks at about 1.9 an.5 ev of the asorption spectrum inicate that MoS unergoes an inirect to irect ban gap transition when its bulk or multilayers form is replace by a monolayer [6 8]. Shifts of PL peak for the monolayer MoS were also observe experimentally, which was attribute to the strain introuce by covere oxies [13]. Theoretical stuies employe ensity functional theory (DFT) metho also preicte monolayer MoS to have a irect gap of 1.78 ev [5]. It is known however that DFT oes not escribe excite state of solis reliably. Furthermore, an important character in low-imensional systems is their strong exciton bining ue to the weak screening compare to bulk cases. Therefore, the goo ban gap agreement between theoretical an experimental results for monolayermos may be a mere coincience. As a channel material for transistor application, theoretical simulations show that monolayer WS performs better Electronic aress: zhangyw@ihpc.a-star.eu.sg Electronic aress: biy@rice.eu than monolayer MoS [1]. In orer to aress above questions, it is important an necessary to employ more accurate calculation metho beyon DFT to investigate the electronic structures of straine monolayermos an WS. The most common metho to circumvent rawback of DFT is the GW approximation[15], in which, self-energy operator Σ contains all the electron-electron exchange an correlation effects. The scgw approach, in which only the orbitals an eigenvalues in G are iterate, while W is fixe to the initial DFT W, was shown to be more accurate in many cases to preict ban gaps of solis [16]. The off-iagonal components of the self-energy Σ shoul be inclue in scgw calculations, since this inclusion has been prove particularly useful for materials such as NiO an MnO [17]. It is note that Σ within GW approximation is efine only on a uniform k mesh in Brillouin-zone, ue to its non-locality. Therefore, unlike DFT ban structure plot, the QP eigenvalues at arbitrary k points along high symmetry lines cannot be performe irectly [18]. Starte from the scgw calculation, the QP ban structure can be interpolate using MLWFs approach. This combination was emonstrate to be accurate an efficient for the scgw ban structure [18]. The GW results were shown to agree well with the photoemission ata [19], while in orer to reprouce the experimental asorption spectra, the consieration of attraction between quasi-electron an quasi-hole (on top of GW approximation) by solving BSE is inispensable [19], particularly for the low-imensional systems with strong excitonic effect. The main goal of this stuy is to accurately preict the QP ban structures an optical spectra of monolayer MoS as a function of strain by aopting the DFT-scGW -BSE approach. Strain in monolayer MoS can be prouce either by
epitaxy on a substrate or by mechanical loaing. It is well-known that strain can be use to tune the electronic properties of materials. This is particularly important for two-imensional materials, which can sustain a large tensile strain. In fact, shifts of PL peak observe experimentally in monolayer MoS was attribute to strain [13], an the magnetic properties of MoS nanoribbons coul be tune by applying strain []. By aopting the aforementione approach, we systematically investigate how the electronic structures an optical properties of monolayer MoS evolve as a function of strain. Our results show that exciton bining energy is insensitive to the strain, while optical ban gap becomes smaller as strain increases. Base on the more accurate ban structures interpolate by MLWFs methos base on scgw results, the effective masses of carriers are calculate. In aition, this calculation approach is also employe to investigate other monolayer TMDs, that is, WS, MoSe, an WSe. Our results emonstrate that the effective mass is ecrease as the strain increases, an monolayer WS possesses the lightest carrier among the TMDs, suggesting that using monolayer WS as a channel material can enhance the carrier mobility an improve the performance of transistor. II. DETAILS OF CALCULATION Our DFT calculations were performe by aopting the generalize graient approximation (GGA) of PBE functional [1] for the exchange correlation potential an the projector augmente wave (PAW) [] metho as implemente in the Vienna ab initio simulation package [3]. 1 valence electrons are inclue for both Mo an W pseuopotentials. The electron wave function was expane in a plane wave basis set with an energy cutoff of 6 ev. A vacuum slab more than 15 Å (perioical length of c is 19 Å) is ae in the irection normal to the nanosheet plane. For the Brillouin zone integration, a 1 1 1 Γ centere Monkhorst-Pack k-point mesh is use. In the following GW QP calculations, both singleshot G W an more accurate scgw calculations are performe. 18 empty conuction bans are inclue. The energy cutoff for the response function is set to be 3 ev, the obtaine ban gap value is almost ientical tothe caseofev. Theconvergenceofourcalculations has been checke carefully. For the Wannier ban structure interpolation, orbitals of Mo (W) an p orbitals of S (Se) are chosen for initial projections. Our BSE spectrum calculations are carrie out on top of scgw. The six highest valence bans an the eight lowest conuction bans were inclue as basis for the excitonic state. BSE was solve using the Tamm-Dancoff approximation. Notice that the applie strain in the present stuy is all equibiaxial, unless state otherwise. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS We first analyze the ensity of states (DOS) for monolayer MoS. The orbitals of Mo an p orbitals of S contribute most to the states aroun the ban gap, similar to previous stuies [9 11]. Fig. 1 shows the projecte orbitals of Mo an p orbitals of S as well as the ecompose orbitals for monolayer MoS at the lattice of 3.16 Å (the experimental lattice constant a of bulk MoS [9]) an uner 3% tensile strain. Base on the DOS, the orbitals of Mo an p orbitals of S are chosen as the initial projections in the Wannier interpolate metho. Fig. shows the ientical DFT ban structures of monolayer MoS obtaine by the non-selfconsistent calculation at fixe potential an Wannier interpolation metho, respectively, confirming that our choice of the initial projections an inner winow energy is appropriate. Base on the goo results for monolayer MoS, the same proceure is also employe for remaining monolayer TMDs. A. QP ban structures of straine monolayer MoS The QP ban structures of monolayer MoS at four lattice constants of 3.16, 3.19 (the optimize value from the present work), 3.55, an 3.35 Å are plotte in Fig. 3, corresponing to %, 1%, 3%, an 6% tensile strains (with reference to 3.16 Å), respectively. As shown in Fig. 3(a), the ban structure obtaine by DFT for strainless MoS is a irect ban gap semiconuctor with a ban gap energy of 1.78 ev, while the inirect ban gap of.9 ev is preicte by G W. Obviously this G W inirect ban gap is contrary to the PL observations [6 8]. The QP ban structures preicte by our scgw calculation show that MoS is a K to K irect ban gap semiconuctor with a ban gap energy of.8 ev. This preiction is in excellent agreement with the recent calculation for MoS at the experimental lattice using full-potential linearize muffin-tin-orbital metho (FP-LMTO) [], which preicte a K to K irect ban gap of.76 ev. It shoul be note that in the D materials, the excitoniceffect is strongue tothe weakscreening. Thusit is important to consier the attraction between the quasielectron an quasi-hole by solving the BSE iscusse below in orer to make the preicte optical gap consistent with the optical spectra. Fig. 3(b) shows the ban structure of monolayermos at 3.19 Å corresponing to 1% strain. The DFT result preicts the monolayer MoS to be an inirect ban gap with K to Γ of 1.67 ev. Previous DFT stuies also foun that monolayer MoS alreay becomes an inirect semiconuctor uner a tensile strain of 1% [1]. After GW correction, both of the G W an scgw QP ban structures show that MoS is still a irect semiconuctor with K to K ban gaps of.5 an.66 ev, respectively. As the strain increases, shown in Fig. 3(c) an 3(),
DOS (arb. units) 3 1 8 Mo S p a=3.16 6 3 1 DOS (arb. units) (a) - 1 Mo 1 S p - z xz x -y (c) a=3.55 6 6 - a=3.16 yz 8 8 (b) xy - () xy a=3.55 yz z xz x -y FIG. 1: Projecte ensity of states of orbitals of Mo an p orbitals of S (a an c) an ecompose orbital of Mo (b an ) for monolayer MoS at lattice constants of 3.16 (a an b) an 3.55 A (c an ), respectively. The latter correspons to 3% tensile strain. (a) a=3.16 (b) a=3.19 (c) a=3.55 () a=3.35 DFT-PBE GW SCGW - - FIG. : DFT ban structures of monolayer MoS at lattice constant of 3.16 A. Re soli line: original ban structure obtaine from a conventional first-principles calculation. Black ash ot: Wannier-interpolate ban structure. The Fermi level is set to zero. the DFT, G W an scgw all preict monolayer MoS to be inirect. The calculate inirect ban gaps from DFT, G W an scgw are 1. (.63),.19 (1.56), an.3 (1.59) for monolayer MoS uner strain of 3% (6%), respectively. As shown in Fig. 3, the value of ban gap ecreases as the tensile strain increases, accompanying a shift of valence ban maximum (VBM) from K to Γ point an resulting in a irect to inirect ban gap transition, which was consistent well with previous results [9, 1] The K to K irect ban gaps of monolayer MoS obtaine by DFT an scgw as a function of tensile strain are plotte in Fig.. Clearly our DFT an scgw results have the same trens, an accor well with reporte DFT [1] (cyan triangle) an scgw [] (green FIG. 3: DFT, G W, an scgw QP ban structures for monolayer MoS at lattice constants of (a) 3.16, (b) 3.19 (the optimize lattice constant from this work), (c) 3.55, an () 3.35 A corresponing to %, 1%, 3%, an 6% tensile strain (with reference to 3.16 A ), respectively. The Fermi level is set to be zero. soli square) results, respectively. Due to the more accurate escription of many boy electron-electron interaction, the scgw ban gaps are enlarge about 1 ev compare to DFT results. The optical gap shown in Fig. will be iscusse in the next subsection. B. Excitonic effect in monolayer MoS In this subsection, the optical properties of monolayer MoS are iscusse in etails. From the technical view, optical transition simulation nees the integration over the irreucible Brillouin zone using sufficiently ense k -point mesh. Naturally, the convergence of k point sampling is important. First, for monolayer MoS
Gap (ev) 3.5 3..5. 1.5 1. DFT this work scgw this work Expt. optical gap Reporte scgw BSE optical gap this work Reporte DFT 1 3 5 6 Tensile strain (%) FIG. : Ban gaps for monolayer MoS obtaine by DFT, scgw, an BSE. Reporte experimental (Expt.) [7], DFT [1], an scgw [] results are also shown. 16 1 8 1. 1.5..5 3. 3 5 15 1 5 (a) DFT-IP (b) scgw -BSE 6 6 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 15 15 1 1. 1.5..5 3. FIG. 5: DFT-IP an scgw +BSE asorption spectra for monolayer MoS at experimental lattice of 3.16 Å (strainless case) obtaine by ifferent k-point meshes. at strainless case (3.16 Å), the optical asorption spectra ε (ε xx =ε yy ) obtaine by ifferent k-point meshes are illustrate in Fig. 5(a), in which the inepenent-particle (IP) picture is aopte within DFT (DFT-IP) an no local file effect is inclue at Hartree or DFT level. The first peak at about 1.78 ev is observe clearly in all the cases, corresponing to the K-K irect transition. The secon significant peak locate at about.75 ev is converge for 1 1 1 an 15 15 1 k-point meshes. Other peaks in asorption spectra between the two aforementione ominate peaks mainly originate from ifferent irreucible k points with unequal weights in ifferent k- point meshes. Accoring to our analysis of projecte ensity of states, the two significant peaks locate in 1.78 an.75 ev correspon to - an p- transitions, respectively. Consiering the ipolar selection rule only transitions with the ifference l = ±1 between the angular momentum quantum numbers l are allowe, i.e., the atomic - transition is forbien. However, in the monolayer MoS, ue to the orbital hybriization, the VBM an conuction ban minimum (CBM) still have p orbital contributions, especially the former; thus the VBM to CBM transition ominate by - transition is still allowe. As expecte, the strength of this - transition is weaker than the p- transition as shown in Fig. 5(a). As for the BSE calculations, in orer to reuce the computational cost, we aopt an ev for the plane wave energy cutoff an response function energy cutoff (short for an ev for energy cutoffs), respectively, while the accuracy still can be guarantee. Taking the strainless monolayer MoS for example, the scgw ban gap is.78 ev, resulting in only. ev ifference compare to.8 ev aforementione using 6 an 3 ev for energy cutoffs. The calculate BSE spectra for strainless monolayer MoS are plotte in Fig. 5(b). It is clearly that as k-point mesh refines, the first peaks have a blueshift. For k-point meshes 6 6 1, 9 9 1, 1 1 1, an 15 15 1, the scgw ban gaps are.99,.8,.78, an.76 ev, respectively; the first asorption peaks (optical ban gaps) are 1.96,.8,.16, an. ev. Corresponingly, the exciton bining energies are 1.3,.76,.6, an.5 ev, inferre from the ifference between the QP (scgw ) an optical (scgw - BSE) gaps. These calculate QP ban gaps, optical gaps an exciton bining energies are also liste in Table I. The convergence tren is obvious, particularly for the electronic ban gap. However, ue to the limitation of computation resource, scgw calculations with more ense k-point mesh are not performe here. Note that previous theoretical results showe a large value of exciton bining energy for monolayer MoS. For example, a value of.9 ev for monolayer MoS (3.16 Å) was obtaine using empirical Mott-Wannier theory []; an a value of 1.3 ev was obtaine by G W -BSE calculations for monolayer MoS (3.18 Å) using 6 6 1 k-point mesh an incluing spin-orbital coupling [5], which is the same as our above results using the same k-point mesh without spin-orbital coupling. Experimentally, two close peaks observe in asorption spectrum of monolayer MoS aroun 1.9 ev are ue to the valence ban splitting cause by spin-orbital coupling. In our calculations, the spin-orbital coupling is omitte unless otherwise state an this will not alter our main conclusions presente in the current stuy. In or-
5 TABLE I: QP ban gap, optical ban gap an exciton bining energy for monolayer MoS an WS are obtaine by QP scgw an BSE with an without spin-orbital coupling (SOC) aopting ifferent energy cutoffs an k-point mesh. All energies are in the unit of ev. Energy cutoffs k-point E g E g(optical) Bining energy Monolayer MoS (3.16 Å) an 6 6 1(SOC).89 1.87 1.1 6 6 1.99 1.96 1.3 9 9 1.8.8.76 1 1 1.78.16.6 15 15 1.76..5 6 an 3 1 1 1.8.17.63 Monolayer MoS (3.19 Å) 6 an 3 1 1 1.66..6 Monolayer WS (3.155 Å) an 6 6 1(SOC) 3. 1.97 1.5 6 6 1 3.8.1 1.7 9 9 1 3.1.3.78 1 1 1 3.6.3.63 15 15 1 3.5.51.5 6 an 3 1 1 1 3.11.6.65 Monolayer WS (3.19 Å) 6 an 3 1 1 1.9.8.6 erto makeacomparison,we alsoperforme the scgw - BSE calculations with spin-orbital coupling using 6 6 1 k-point mesh an an ev for energy cutoffs. The two peaks in BSE asorption spectrum locate at 1.87 an.5 ev an the corresponing exciton bining energy is 1. ev, consistent well with the aforementione G W - BSE calculations using the same k-point mesh an energy cutoffs while ifferent pseuopotentials [5]. Notice that the exciton bining energy obtaine with an without spin-orbital coupling for monolayer MoS as shown in Table I is nearly the same, while the optical gap in the former case shifts about.1 ev towars lower energy ue to the top valence ban splitting of.17 ev accoring to our scgw calculation. For the evolution of exciton bining energy as a function of strain, our results emonstrate that it is almost unchange, i.e.,.63 ev (strainless),.6 ev (1% strain),.6 ev (3% strain), an.59 ev (6% strain) (using 6 an 3 ev for energy cutoffs an 1 1 1 k-point mesh). The irect optical gaps are.17,., 1.81, 1.5 ev for the four cases shown in Fig. 3, respectively, an also shown in Fig. using the orange left triangles. The experimental optical gap for monolayer MoS was shown to be about 1.9 ev [7]. Since there was no mention of specific lattice parameter, here it is assume to be the strainless case as shown in Fig.. Notice that the consistency is goo between our theoretical an experimental results. If spin-orbital coupling is taken into account, the consistency will be improve further, since the first peak in the asorption spectrum moves towars lower energy ue to the top valence ban splitting. Most importantly, our results emonstrate that the optical gap of monolayer MoS is very sensitive to tensile strain, which can be tune by epositing monolayer MoS on ifferent substrates [13], whereas the exciton bining energy is insensitive to it accoring to our current results. This insensitivity is mainly because the hole an electron are erive from the topmost valence an lowest conuction ege states close to VBM an CBM that are significantly localize on Mo sites (contribute by Mo orbitals) irrespective of the magnitue of strain accoring to our DOS analysis. We also notice that layer-layer istance or the length of vacuum zone implemente in the perioical supercell methos has important influence on the magnitue of the G W ban gap an the exciton bining energy [6, 7]. That is because the long-range van er Waals forces originating from the nonlocal electron-electron correlation is important in the layer TMDs. In orer to obtain an accurate exciton bining energy, the convergence of k-point mesh, the truncation of Coulomb interaction[6], an the resulting accurate QP ban structure (G W or scgw) are necessary. Compare to exciton bining energy of 1.1 ev obtaine by interpolation of G W ban gap [7], our exciton bining energy obtaine using enser k-point is unerestimate [8], ue to the finite thickness of vacuum layer aopte in our perioical supercell calculations. However, the magnitue of the optical gap is not affecte by the vacuum layer height accoring to our test (not shown here). An interesting observation is that the optical gap of monolayer MoS is sensitive to the strain while the exciton bining energy is not. Our results also show that the spin-orbital coupling oes not change the magnitue of exciton bining energy, while the optical gap reuces towars experimental result ue to the ban splitting at K points an better consistency is achieve.
6 (b) (a) (a) a=3.155 (b) a=3.19 (c) a=3.5 () a=3.3 DFT-PBE GW SCGW - FIG. 6: Isosurface plots of (a) valence-ban an (b) conuction ban MLWFs for MoS (at constant lattice of 3.16 A ), at isosurface values ±1.8/ V, where V is the unit cell volume, positive value re, an negative value blue. (a) is Mo x y -like function showing boning with the S p x (p y ) orbital, an (b) Mo z -like function showing antiboning with the S p x (p y ) orbital. C. Chemical boning properties of monolayer MoS In orer to gain further insight into the electronic structures uner the tensile strain, we revisit the DOS shown in Fig. 1. For the strainless case, the VBM states at K mainly originate from Mo ( xy + x y ), an S (p x + p y ) (ecompose p orbitals not shown in Fig. 1). The CBM at K is mainly contribute by Mo z an S (p x + p y ). The Mo an S p orbitals hybriize significantly, therefore Mo an S form covalent bon. MLWFs can also illustrate the chemical boning properties of solis [9]. The MLWFs shown in Fig. 6 were constructe in two groups. The first group was generate from guiing functions on Mo. The energy winow contains the topmost valence bans. Isosurface plots of the Mo x y MLWFs shown in Fig. 6(a) show x y orbitals form covalent boning with p x (p y ) orbitals. The secon group that MLWFs for the low-lying conuction bans were also generate from Mo guiing functions. Isosurface plots of the Mo z MLWFs shown in Fig. 6(a) show z oritals form antiboning with p x (p y ) orbitals. The chemical boning characters emonstrate by MLWFs are consistent well with our DOS analysis shown in Fig. 1. D. QP ban structures an optical properties of straine monolayer WS The QP ban structures of monolayer WS uner tensile strain are also investigate, motivate by its better performance than monolayer MoS use as a channel in transistor evices [1]. The calculation results are illustrate in Fig. 7. Similar to monolayer MoS, the scgw QP ban structures of monolayer WS also unergo a irect to inirect ban gap transition as tensile strain in- FIG. 7: DFT, G W, an scgw QP ban structures for WS at lattice constants of (a) 3.155, (b) 3.19 (optimize lattice constant this work), (c) 3.5, an () 3.3 A, corresponing to %, 1%, 3%, an 6% tensile strain (with reference to 3.155 A ), respectively. The Fermi level is set to be zero. creases. The irect ban gaps for the strainless (at the experimental lattice of 3.155 A [9]) an uner 1% tensile strain cases are 3.11 an.9 ev, respectively, an the latter correspons to the optimize lattice constant for monolayer WS from this work. The corresponing inirect ban gaps uner 3% an 6% tensile strains are.9 an 1.78 ev, respectively. Note that for the strainless case, our DFT result preicts monolayer WS to be an inirect ban gap semiconuctor with CBM only about 16 mev lower than the lowest conuction ban at K points, which is contrary to recent full potential methos [9]. The ifference may be originate from the technical aspect of these calculations, such as the employe pseuopotential metho [3]. However, after the GW correction, a correct irect ban gap is achieve. For optical properties of monolayer WS, our calculate QP ban gaps, optical gaps an exciton bining energies are also liste in Table I. It is obvious that the monolayer WS presents many similar properties compare to monolayer MoS, for example, the gaps an exciton bining energy also emonstrate a convergence tren as k -point mesh increases; the spin-orbital coupling has little influence on the magnitue of the exciton bining energy. Notice that our scgw calculation preicts the top valence ban splitting of monolayer WS to be. ev, larger than that of monolayer MoS of.17 ev, because W is much heavier than Mo. The resulting first peak in BSE asorption spectrum shifts. ev towars lower energy, also larger that that of monolayer MoS of.1 ev corresponingly. As for the strain effect, the BSE optical gap at our optimize lattice constant of 3.19 A is.8 ev, while at 3.16 A it is.6 ev, as shown in Table I. The former corresponing to 1% tensile strain, results in.18 ev reuction of ban gaps. This emonstrates that the ban gaps an optical gaps are also very sensitive to tensile strain, whereas the exciton bining energy is not. Base on above analysis, we preict the exciton bining energy of monolayer WS is similar to that of MoS. Experimentally, the PL maximum of monolayer
7 WS locates between 1.9 an 1.99 ev [31]. Consiering the large shift of the peak in the BSE asorption spectrum cause by spin-orbital coupling, our results at optimize lattice of 3.19 Å are consistent well with above experimental result [31]. Accoring to our above scgw an BSE calculations for monolayer MoS an WS, it is clear that the self energy within the scgw calculations enlarges the ban gap by accounting for the many boy electron-electron interactions more accurately, while the strong excitonic effect results in a significant reuction of the ban gap. Combining the two opposite effects on ban gaps, the final resulting optical gap is consistent well with DFT ban gaps. Therefore, the goo ban gap agreement between DFT anexperiment is only acoincience ue to the fact that QP ban gap correction is almost offset by exciton bining energy. This phenomenon was also observe in monolayer of hybriize graphene an hexagonal boron nitrie, which also have strong excitonic effect [3]. We also perform the scgw QP ban structures for monolayermos an WS uner 1% compressivestrains. Our results show that the compresse MoS has a irect ban gap of.97 ev, while the compresse WS has an inirect ban gap of 3.13 ev an K to K irect gap of 3.3 ev. Our scgw results show that both MoSe an WSe are also a irect semiconuctor at the strainless state. The experimental lattice constants [9] for MoSe an WSe are 3.99 an 3.86 Å an the optimize lattice constants are 3.37 an 3.36 Å, respectively; their irect K-K ban gaps are. an.68 ev at experimental lattices an.3 an.5 ev at the optimize lattices. Compare to the experimental lattice, the optimize lattice correspons to.86% (1.%) tensile strain for MoSe (WSe ), an the ban gap also ecreases with increasing tensile strain. E. Effective mass Base on the more accurate scgw QP ban structures, the effective mass of carriers for TMDs are calculate by fitting the bans to a parabola accoring to E = k m em, where m e is the electron static mass. A k-point spacing smaller than.3 Å 1 is use to keep paraboliceffects. Electronanhole effectivemasses(m ) atifferent strainsarecollectein TableII. ForMoS uner ifferent strains, the CBM always locates in K point, an the electron effective mass K e increaseswith increasing compressive strain while ecreases with increasing tensile strain. As for hole, initially the effective mass also ecreases as the tensile strain increases. After the irect to inirect gap transition, VBM shifts to Γ with heavier hole, which also ecreases as the tensile strain increases. Compare to the effective masses of.6 an.8 for hole an electron at K point base on DFT calculation performe at the experimental lattice [9] for MoS, the effective masses are reuce ue to the GW correction in our stuy. It is note that the carrier effective masses obtaine by our scgw calculations o not inclue the spin-orbital coupling effect. Compare with those incluing spinorbital effect for monolayer MoS [], it is foun that the electron effective masses are in goo agreement while the present hole effective mass is slightly smaller. This is mainly because the spin-orbital coupling alters the curvature of the topmost valence ban close to VBM while the lowest conuction ban close to CBM is not affecte. The large ifference between scgw (scgw ) an G W result [5] may be ue to the poor k-points sampling an non-self-consistent(one-shot) GW calculations of the latter. For WS, MoSe, an WSe, their masses also show similar behaviors. It is note that at the same strain level, the electron effective mass of WS is the lightest; an electron effective mass ecreases as strain increases, making WS more attractive for high performance electronic evice applications since a lighter electron effective mass can lea to a higher mobility. Theoretical evice simulations also emonstrate that as a channel material, the performance of WS is superior to that of other TMDs [1]. IV. SUMMARY In summary, the QP ban structures of monolayer MoS an WS at both strainless an straine states have been stuie systematically. The scgw calculations are foun to be reliable for such calculations. Using this approach, we fin they share many similar behaviors. For the optical properties of monolayer MoS, exciton bining energy is foun to be insensitive to the strain. Our calculate optical ban gap is also consistent with experimental results. In aition, we fin that the electron effective masses of monolayer MoS, WS, MoSe, an WSe ecreaseas the tensile strain increases, an WS possesses the lightest mass among the four monolayer materials at the same strain. Importantly, the present work highlights a possible avenue to tune the electronic properties of monolayer TMDs using strain engineering for potential applications in high performance electronic evices. V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Work at Rice was supporte by the Office of Naval Research MURI project an by the Robert Welch Founation (C-159).
8 TABLE II: Electron an hole effective masses (m ) erivefrom partially scgw QPban structuresfor monolayer MoS, WS, MoSe, an WSe at ifferent strains. The effective masses at K an Γ points are along KΓ an MΓ irections, respectively. Compressive (1%) Experimental lattices Optimize lattices Tensile (3%) Tensile (6%) MoS K e..36 (.35 a,.6 b ).3.9.7 K h..39 (. a,.5 b ).37 Γ h 1.36.9 WS K e.7... K h.3.31 Γ h 1..79 MoSe K e.38.36 K h.. WSe K e.9.6 K h.3.33 a Effective masses liste here are averages of the longituinal an transverse values in Ref. []. b Effective masses liste here are averages of the curvatures along the ΓK an KM irections in Ref. [5] [1] E. Fortin an W. Sears, J. Phys. Chem. Solis 3, 881 (198). [] W. K. Ho, J. C. Yu, J. Lin, J. G. Yu, an P. S. Li, Langmuir, 5865 (). [3] K. H. Hu, X. G. Hu, an X. J. Sun, Appl. Surf. Sci. 56, 517 (1). [] K. S. Novoselov, D. Jiang, F. Schein, T. J. Booth, V. V. Khotkevich, S. V. Morozov, an A. K. Geim, Proc. Natl. Aca. Sci. USA 1, 151 (5). [5] S. Lebègue an O. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. B 79, 1159 (9). [6] A. Spleniani, L. Sun, Y. Zhang, T. Li, J. Kim, C.- Y. Chim, G. Galli, an F. Wang, Nano Lett. 1, 171 (1). [7] K. F. Mak, C. Lee, J. Hone, J. Shan, an T. F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 13685 (1). [8] T. Korn, S. Heyrich, M. Hirmer, J. Schmutzler, an C. Schüller, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 119 (11). [9] W. S. Yun, S. W. Han, S. C. Hong, I. G. Kim, an J. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 85, 3335 (1). [1] P. Johari an V. B. Shenoy, ACS Nano 6, 59 (1). [11] E. Scalise, M. Houssa, G. Pourtois, V. Afanas ev, an A. Stesmans, Nano Res. 5, 3 (1). [1] T. Li, Phys. Rev. B 85, 357 (1). [13] G. Plechinger, F.-X. Schrettenbrunner, J. Eroms, D. Weiss, C. Schuller, an T. Korn, Phys. Status Solii- Rapi Res. Lett. 6, 16 (1). [1] L. Liu, S. B. Kumar, Y. Ouyang, an J. Guo, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 58, 3 (11). [15] L. Hein, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965). [16] M. Shishkin an G. KressePhys. Rev. B 75, 351 (7). [17] S. V. Faleev, M. v. Schilfgaare, an T. Kotani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 166 (). [18] D. R. Hamann an Davi Vanerbilt, Phys. Rev. B 79, 519 (9). [19] G. Onia, L. Reining, an A. Rubio, Rev. Mo. Phys. 7, 61 (). [] H. Pan an Y.-W. Zhang, J. Phys. Chem. C 116, 1175 (1). [1] J. P. Perew, K. Burke, an M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). [] G. Kresse an D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999). [3] G. Kresse an J. Furthmuller, Phys. Rev. B 5, 1116 (1996). [] T. Cheiwchanchamnangij an W. R. L. Lambrecht, Phys. Rev. B 85, 53 (1). [5] Ashwin Ramasubramaniam, Phys. Rev. B 86, 1159 (1). [6] C. A. Rozzi, D. Varsano, A. Marini, E. K. U. Gross, an A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. B 73, 5119 (6). [7] H.-P. Komsa an A. V. Krasheninnikov, Phys. Rev. B 86, 11(R) (1). [8] We get the interpolate ban gap of 3.18 ev for monolayer MoS at 3.16 Å using using an ev for energy cutoffs an 1 1 1 k-point mesh following the methos in Ref. [7]. Consiering our results that optical gaps are not affecte by the thickness of vacuum layer, the exciton bining energy is about 1. ev, consistent well with conclusions in Ref. [7]. [9] F. Freimuth, Y. Mokrousov, D. Wortmann, S. Heinze, an S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. B 78, 351 (8). [3] We also test the new release pseuopotential by employing 1 valence electrons instea of current 1 ones for W in the DFT calculations, the irect ban gap of 1.95 ev for monolayer WS at 3.155 Å is obtain with CBM, 1 mev lower than the local minimum at about the mile point along K to Γ, similar to the results obtaine by the full potential metho in Ref. [9]. The relsulte scgw QP ban structures of monolayer WS are also similar to that presente in Fig. 7, an the main conclusions for monlayer WS remain unchange. [31] H. R. Gutiérrez, N. Perea-López, A. L. Elias, A. Berkemir, B. Wang, R. Lv, F. López-Urias, V. H. Crespi, H. Terrones, M. Terrones, arxiv:18.135. [3] M. Bernari, M. Palummo, an J. C. Grossman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 685 (1).