First-principles multiphase equation of state of carbon under extreme conditions

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 78, Issue 2, 2008, Pages

  Correa, Alfredo A ^a,b   Benedict, Lorin X ^b   Young, David A ^b   Schwegler, Eric ^b   Bonev, Stanimir A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 46749128171     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.024101     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. D. K. Bradley, J. H. Eggert, D. G. Hicks, P. M. Celliers, S. J. Moon, R. C. Cauble, and G. W. Collins, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.195506 93, 195506 (2004).
2. H. Nagao, K. G. Nakamura, K. Kondo, N. Ozaki, K. Takamatsu, T. Ono, T. Shiota, D. Ichinose, K. A. Tanaka, K. Wakabayashi, K. Okada, M. Yoshida, M. Nakai, K. Nagai, K. Shigemori, T. Sakaiya, and K. Otani, Phys. Plasmas PHPAEN 1070-664X 10.1063/1.2205194 13, 052705 (2006).
3. S. L. Johnson, P. A. Heimann, A. G. MacPhee, A. M. Lindenberg, O. R. Monteiro, Z. Chang, R. W. Lee, and R. W. Falcone, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.057407 94, 057407 (2005).
4. B. A. Hammel and the National Ignition Campaign Team, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion PPCFET 0741-3335 10.1088/0741-3335/48/12B/S47 48, B497 (2006).
5. M. A. Meyers, Dynamic Behavior of Materials (Wiley, New York, 1994).
6. M. Ross, Nature (London) NATUAS 0028-0836 10.1038/292435a0 292, 435 (1981).
7. W. B. Hubbard, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.214.4517.145 214, 145 (1981).
8. L. R. Benedetti, J. H. Nguyen, W. A. Caldwell, H. Liu, M. Kruger, and R. Jeanloz, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.286.5437.100 286, 100 (1999).
9. L. M. Ghiringhelli, C. Valeriani, E. J. Meijer, and D. Frenkel, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.055702 99, 055702 (2007).
10. J. S. Albinson and A. Evans, Astrophys. Space Sci. 131, 443 (1987). 0004-640X
11. J. L. Barrat, J. P. Hansen, and R. Mochkovitch, Astron. Astrophys. 199, L15 (1988). 0004-6361
12. P. Dufour, J. Liebert, G. Fontaine, and N. Behara, Nature (London) 450, 522 (2007). 0028-0836
13. L. Segretain, G. Chabrier, M. Hernanz, E. Garcia-Berro, J. Isern, and R. Mochkovitch, Astrophys. J. ASJOAB 0004-637X 10.1086/174766 434, 641 (1994).
14. T. S. Metcalfe, M. H. Montgomery, and A. Kannan, Astrophys. J. 605, L133 (2004). 0004-637X
15. Marc J. Kuchner and Sara Seager, arXiv:astro-ph/0504214 (unpublihsed).
16. S. Seager, M. Kuchner, C. A. HierMajumder, and B. Militzer, Astrophys. J. ASJOAB 0004-637X 10.1086/521346 669, 1279 (2007).
17. In principle, dynamic compression could involve time scales fast enough so that equilibrium is not reached, in which case detailed kinetic models would have to be employed. We ignore these effects in this work.
18. We ignore the graphite phase in this work. In particular, we envision a scenario in which dynamic compression is applied to a diamond-phase initial state.
19. S. Fahy and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.36.3373 36, 3373 (1987).
20. M. T. Yin and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.1004 45, 1004 (1980).
21. G. I. Kerley and L. Chhabildas, Sandia National Laboratories Report No. SAND2001-2619, 2001.
22. M. van Thiel and F. H. Ree, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.3591 48, 3591 (1993).
23. A. M. Molodets, Fiz. Goreniya Vzryva 34, 94 (1998). 0430-6228
24. F. P. Bundy, W. A. Bassett, M. S. Weathers, R. J. Hemley, H. U. Mao, and A. F. Goncharov, Carbon CRBNAH 0008-6223 10.1016/0008-6223(96)00170-4 34, 141 (1996).
25. M. P. Grumbach and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.15730 54, 15730 (1996).
26. X. Wang, S. Scandolo, and R. Car, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.185701 95, 185701 (2005).
27. A. A. Correa, S. A. Bonev, and G. Galli, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. PNASA6 0027-8424 10.1073/pnas.0510489103 103, 1204 (2006).
28. S. Brygoo, E. Henry, P. Loubeyre, J. Eggert, M. Koening, B. N. Loupias, A. Bebuzzi, and M. R. Le Gloahec, Nat. Mater. NMAACR 1476-1122 10.1038/nmat1863 6, 274 (2007).
29. L. E. Fried and W. M. Howard, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.61.8734 61, 8734 (2000).
30. K. V. Khishchenko, V. E. Fortov, and I. V. Lomonosov, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 26, 479 (2005). 0020-7748
31. E. D. Chisolm and D. C. Wallace, J. Phys. C 13, R739 (2001). 0022-3719
32. E. D. Chisolm, S. D. Crockett, and D. C. Wallace, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.104103 68, 104103 (2003).
33. J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 77, 3865 (1996).
34. N. Troullier and J. L. Martins, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.1993 43, 1993 (1991).
35. J. Crain, S. J. Clark, G. J. Ackland, M. C. Payne, V. Milman, P. D. Hatton, and B. J. Reid, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.5329 49, 5329 (1994).
36. P. Vinet, J. H. Rose, J. Ferrante, and J. R. Smith, J. Phys. C 1, 1941 (1989). 0022-3719
37. We fit the cold curve over a wide range of volumes (∼1-9 Å3 /atom), so we do not expect our extracted cold-curve parameters (V0, B0, B0′, and 0) to be the optimal ones for describing the behavior right in the neighborhood of V0 (i.e., near ambient conditions). Rather, they are a set of parameters which give a good global fit over the wide range of volumes considered.
38. D. C. Wallace, Thermodyamics of Crystals (Dover, New York, 1998).
39. ABINIT is a common project of the Universite Catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium), Corning Incorporated, and other contributors.
40. D. C. Wallace, Phys. Rev. E PLEEE8 1063-651X 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.1981 56, 1981 (1997).
41. O. H. Nielsen and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.32.3792 32, 3792 (1985).
42. QBOX is a C++/MPI scalable parallel implementation of first-principles molecular dynamics (FPMD) based on the plane-wave pseudopotential formalism developed by F. Gygi (http://eslab.ucdavis.edu/).
43. D. Frenkel and B. Smit, Understanding Molecular Simulation (Academic, San Diego, 2002).
44. J. R. Morris, C. Z. Wang, K. M. Ho, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.3109 49, 3109 (1994).
45. J. H. Eggert, D. G. Hicks, P. M. Celliers, D. K. Bradley, S. R. McWilliams, R. Jeanloz, J. E. Miller, T. R. Boehly, and G. W. Collins (unpublished).
46. There should also be terms accounting for the system making a transition from one distinct well to another. We assume that the system spends most of its time in individual wells rather than between them, in which case these terms are small (Ref.).
47. At very high temperatures (many times Tmelt), ion kinetic energy dominates over interion potential energy and the system behaves like an ideal gas with E∼ 3 2 kB T. This is taken into account in our plasma-based model.
48. Our agreement would be significantly better if we used a diamond bulk modulus and a Grüneisen parameter from experiment to fit our EOS since the thermal-expansion coefficient involves the ratio of these two quantities. Part of the discrepancy is therefore due to our adherence to the first-principles results for this study, together with the fact that our bulk modulus was taken from a fit to a wide range of volumes (rather than just in the neighborhood of V0). We feel this is of little concern, however, since thermal expansion for diamond is so small (for most materials it is an order of magnitude larger). Thus, our final EOS: E=E (V,T), P=P (V,T) should still be quite accurate.
49. G. A. Slack and S. F. Bartram, J. Appl. Phys. JAPIAU 0021-8979 10.1063/1.321373 46, 89 (1975).
50. M. N. Pavlovskii, Sov. Phys. Solid State SPSSA7 0038-5654 13, 741 (1971).
51. Uncertainty of this magnitude is to be expected from the prediction of melting temperatures using DFT-based methods.
52. We determined the solid and liquid Hugoniots of Fig. 14 by taking the initial density to be that of experiment at ambient conditions (P=0, T=300 K). Since the ambient density of our EOS model is slightly shifted from this (due to the GGA-DFT error), our starting pressure is nonzero (∼12 GPa). Alternatively, we could have chosen the same experimental starting density but required P=0. This would have shifted the curves in temperature. If we use this prescription, the resulting solid and liquid Hugoniots are shifted up in pressure (relative to those displayed) by roughly 20 GPa near shock-melting. This is a very small shift compared to the theory-experiment liquid Hugoniot disagreement we discuss here.
53. N. A. Romero and W. D. Mattson, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.214113 76, 214113 (2007).
54. D. A. Young and E. M. Corey, J. Appl. Phys. JAPIAU 0021-8979 10.1063/1.359955 78, 3748 (1995).
55. R. M. More, K. H. Warren, D. A. Young, and G. B. Zimmerman, Phys. Fluids PFLDAS 0031-9171 10.1063/1.866963 31, 3059 (1988).
56. D. Ho (private communication).