Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:38:26.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stability of tight-packed metals with the embedded-atom method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

R.A. Johnson
Affiliation:
Materials Science Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Get access

Abstract

Relationships between embedded-atom method parameters and the energies of fcc-hcp stability and intrinsic and extrinsic fcc stacking-faults were studied for Cu, Ag, Au, Ni, Pd, and Pt. It was found that the relative magnitudes of these energies for different metals are determined primarily by the physical input data and are almost independent of the cutoff distance and the functions used in the model. These energies increase with increasing vacancy formation energy, decrease with increasing atomic volume and shear modulus, and are almost independent of variations in the cohesive energy and the bulk modulus. However, the shape of the energy versus cutoff distance curve is almost the same for all six metals and is determined primarily by the cutoff distance and the functions used in the model. The shape for a given model is almost independent of the physical input parameters used for fitting to specific metals, can yield either positive or negative values (determined primarily by the cutoff distance), and is similar for all three energies.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Daw, M. S. and Baskes, M. I., Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1285 (1983); Phys. Rev. B 29, 6443 (1984).Google Scholar
2.Finnis, M. W. and Sinclair, J. E., Philos. Mag. A 50, 45 (1984); Philos. Mag. A 53, 161(E) (1986).Google Scholar
3.Johnson, R. A. and Oh, D. J., J. Mater. Res. 4, 1195 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Daw, M. S., Phys. Rev. B 39, 7441 (1989).Google Scholar
5.Johnson, R. A., Phys. Rev. B 37, 3924 (1988); Phys. Rev B 37, 6121 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Johnson, R. A., Phys. Rev. B 41, 9717 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Johnson, R. A., Phys. Rev. B 39, 12554 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Foiles, S. M., Baskes, M. I., and Daw, M. S., Phys. Rev. B 33, 7983 (1986).Google Scholar