Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:40:13.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward Modeling Charge-Defect Reactions at the Atomistic Level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Steve Valone
Steve Valone*
Affiliation:
[email protected], Los Alamos National Laboratory, Materials Science and Technology Division, Group MST-8, Mail Stop G755, Los Alamos, NM, NM, 87545, United States, 505-667-2067, 505-667-8021
Get access

Abstract

Defect reactions involving charged species are commonplace in nuclear fuels fabrication and burn-up. Even the simplest of these fuels, uranium dioxide (UO2), typically involves the nominal charge states of +3, +4, and +5 or +6 in U and -1 and -2 states in O. Simulations that attempt to model evolutionary processes in the fuels require tracking changes among these charge states. At the atomistic level, modeling defect reactions poses a particularly vexing problem. Typical potential energy surfaces do not have this type of physical phenomena built into them. Those models that do attempt to model charge-defect reactions do not have especially strong physical bases for the models. For instance, most do not obey established limits of charge behavior at dissociation or lack internal consistency. This work presents substantial generalizations to earlier work of Perdew et al. No matter the size of the system, total system hamiltonians can be decomposed into subsystem or site hamiltonians and coulombic interactions. Site hamiltonians can be evaluated in a spectral representation, once an integer number of electrons are assigned. For both pair and individual site hamiltonians a dilemma emerges in that many sites are better understood as possessing a fractional charge. The dilemma is how to weight the site integer-charge states in a physically consistent manner. One approach to solving the dilemma results in two distinct charge-dependent energy contributions emerge, arising from intra- and inter-subsystem charge transfer. Further analysis results in a model of the intra-subsystem charge-transfer that can accommodate the mixed valence states of either U or O in nuclear fuels. Mixed valence properties add complications to the model that originate in the phenomenological fact that it typically requires different amounts of energy to increase or decrease charge. As a result of the inherent complexity one has the option of using multiple charges, a concept with strong ties to shell models, or modeling parameters not directly related to charge as functions of charge. This latter approach is illustrated by invoking a minimization principle that does preserve the important dissociation limits of Perdew et al., in order to complete the model.

Keywords

radiation effectsdefectssimulation
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1104: Symposium NN – Actinides 2008—Basic Science, Applications and Technology , 2008 , 1104-NN08-04
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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 Kohn, W. and Sham, L. J., Phys. Rev. 140, A1133–A1138 (1965).Google Scholar
2 Hubbard, J., Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), Ser. A, Math. Phys. Sci. 276, 238–257 (1963).Google Scholar
3 Anisimov, V. I. et al. , Phys. Rev. B 44, 943–954 (1991).Google Scholar
4 Georges, A. et al. , Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 13–125 (1996).Google Scholar
5 Shim, J. H. et al. , Nat. Lett. 446, 513–516 (2007).Google Scholar
6 Kudin, K. N., Scuseria, G. E., and Martin, R. L., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 266402 (2002).10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.266402Google Scholar
7 Streitz, F. H. and Mintmire, J. W., Thin Solid Films 253, 179–184 (1994); Phys. Rev. B 50, 11996-12003 (1994).10.1016/0040-6090(94)90316-6Google Scholar
8 Duin, A. C. T. van, Dasgupta, S., Lorant, F., and Goddard, W. A. III , J. Phys. Chem. A 105, 9396–9409 (2001).Google Scholar
9 Beest, B. W. H. van, Kramer, G. J., and van Santen, R. A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1955–58 (1990).Google Scholar
10 Perdew, J. P., Parr, R. G., Levy, M., and Balduz, J. L. Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1691–94 (1982).Google Scholar
11 Harrison, W. A., Phys. Rev. B 29, 2917–2925 (1984).Google Scholar
12 Valone, S. M. and Atlas, S. R., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 256402 (2006).Google Scholar
13 Valone, S. M., Li, J., and Jindal, S., Int. J. Quant. Chem. in press (2008).Google Scholar
14 Li, J. and McWeeny, R., Int. J. Quant. Chem. 89, 208–16 (2002).Google Scholar