Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T20:01:14.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Order/Disorder and Phase Diagram of H on Pd(100)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2011

P. Tibbits
Affiliation:
Center for Irradiation of Materials, Alabama A&M University, P.O. Box 741, Normal Station, Huntsville, AL 35762-0741
M. Karimi
Affiliation:
Center for Irradiation of Materials, Alabama A&M University, P.O. Box 741, Normal Station, Huntsville, AL 35762-0741
D. Ila
Affiliation:
Center for Irradiation of Materials, Alabama A&M University, P.O. Box 741, Normal Station, Huntsville, AL 35762-0741
I. Dalins
Affiliation:
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Materials and Processes Laboratory, Huntsville, AL
G. Vidali
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, Physics Department, Syracuse, NY
Get access

Abstract

An atomistic simulation of H-Pd(100) provided a phase diagram for the c2×2 H overlayer phase. The Embedded Atom Method (EAM) calculated energy of each configuration of atoms and the Metropolis Monte Carlo algorithm equilibrated the structure and generated configurations from which to sample the structure factor for the H overlayer. The procedure provided the expectation of the square of the structure factor modulus, < |S2| >, as a function of temperature at three coverages. The inflection point of the < |S2| > versus T curve estimated the critical temperature for disordering, Tc,, for one value of coverage, θ. The plot of Tc versus θ, the phase boundary for the c2×2 phase, lay about 125 K below the experimentally determined boundary. A comparison of the energies of ordered and disordered phases showed ΔE = 0.016 eV per hydrogen atom. Equating this unrealistically small energy difference to thermal kinetic energy (3/2)kBTc at the critical temperature implies Tc ≈ 100 K. Obtaining – |S2| > values relatively free of noise at such low temperatures required large numbers of Monte Carlo steps. The c2×2 phase is the experimentally determined stable low temperature phase, and was assumed to be the lowest-energy phase possible in this simulation. The very small ΔE indicates that some other ordered phase may be more stable than c2×2 in the EAM model.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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

REFERENCES

[1] Behin, R.. Christmann, K.. Ertl, G.. Surf. Sci. 99 320 (1980)Google Scholar
[2] Binder, K.. Landau, D. P.. Surf. Sci. 125 (1983)Google Scholar
[3] Binder, K. Landau, D. P. Surface Science 61 (1981)Google Scholar
[4] Daw, M. S.. Foiles, S. M., Phys. Rev. B 35 2128 (1987)Google Scholar
[5] Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., Teller, E.. J. of Chem. Phys. 21 1087 (1953)Google Scholar
[6] Unpublished notes from an EAM seminar held at Sandia National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
[7a] Daw, M. S.. Baskes, M. I.. Phys. Rev. B 29 6443 (1984)Google Scholar
[7b] Foiles, S. M.. Baskes, M. I.. Daw, M. S.. Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 1285 (1983)Google Scholar
[8] Oh, D. J., Johnson, R. A., J. Mater. Res. 3 471 (1988)Google Scholar
[9] Bartelt, N. C. Einstein, T. L. Roelofs, L. D. Phys. Rev. B32 2993 (1985)Google Scholar