From 2000-06-27 it appears that in the system
, the
reduction energy is more favorable than in
the corresponding
system. So let's do some
calcs without zirconia.
This refers to the
system.
The
reduction energy was evaluated according to
the procedure outlined in section 2000-06-21: even if the system does
not contain zirconia, the mean field analysis remains identical.
The following compares presently calculated lattice parameters with
the empirical equation of Kim (1989), which, for the present case
, reads as:
with and the
's in
, or:
with and the
's in Å.
The values of the various parameters are (Shannon, 1976):
The accord does not seem to be very good, at least not as good as previously found.
Note that decreases as the fraction of
increases, notwithstanding that
. This
should be
due to the creation of oxygen vacancies. This is handled by the
term in Kim's model: this is
negative for trivalent dopants so that it prevails if the
difference in radii is not large enough.
opti conp defect maxcyc opt 200 maxcyc fit 200 dump every 1 ce4-30.dump title Ce4+ impurity end cell 5.329267 5.329267 5.329267 90.000000 90.000000 90.000000 fractional 5 Ce4 core 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -3.7000 0.7000 0.0000 Y core 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 0.3000 0.0000 O core 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.0770 0.9250 0.0000 Ce4 shel 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000 0.7000 0.0000 O shel 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 -2.0770 0.9250 0.0000 space 225 size 9.0 20.0000 centre 0.00 0.00 0.00 impurity Ce4 0.00 0.00 0.00 species 2 Ce3 core -4.700000 Ce3 shel 7.700000 buck Ce4 shel O shel 1986.8300 0.351070 20.400 0.000 15.000 Y core O shel 1345.1000 0.349100 0.0 0.000 15.000 Ce3 shel O shel 1731.6181 0.363720 14.433 0.000 15.000 O shel O shel 22764.300 0.149000 27.890 0.000 15.000 spring Ce4 291.75000 Ce3 291.75000 O 27.290000