However, it would require some thought and careful testing to determine if it's possible to create such a model that accurately represents the combined materials. The advantage of this approach is that it would allow you to use a larger mesh size. Create a single 'effective' 2D material model that represents the behavior of the combined graphene-MoS2 structure.This will require a small mesh to resolve the bulk 3D material, but it should allow you to correctly model the system. The effect of three different interlayer stacking arrangements of bilayer (BL) molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) channel material on the device behavior of p- and n-metaloxidesemiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) is extensively investigated using first-principles calculation based on density functional theory, emphasizing electronic properties such as the eigenstates, effective mass. Graphene) and a bulk 3D model for the other (i.e. The indirect band gap in the bulk MoS2 was found to be 0.9 eV, whereas. Use a 2D material model for one of the materials (i.e. Electronic structure calculation of bulk and monolayer MoS2 has been performed using plane wave pseudopotential method based on density functional theory.I can think of two possible solutions, although I must admit that I'm not sure which one is better. a A typical current mapping of a MoS 2 /Gr heterojunction with a twist angle of 28.03, scale bar, 100 nm. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll be able to use two 2D materials directly on top of each other. Twist-angle-dependent conductivities of MoS 2 /Gr heterojunctions. The meshing algorithm basically sees the two objects (graphene & MoS2) as being directly on top of each other. The algorithm can only handle one '2D material' for each mesh point. However, this doesn't work if you have two very thin layers. For example, you might use a 10nm mesh, even though the physical thickness of the graphene is 1nm. The main advantage of using 2D objects to model thin layers like Graphene is that it allows you to use a mesh size that's much larger than the layer thickness.