Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T19:25:36.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the Direct Configurational Averaging and Connolly-Williams Methods of Obtaining Effective Pair Interactions in Substitutionally Disordered Alloys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2011

C. Wolverton ,
H. Dreysse  and
D. De Fontaine
C. Wolverton
Affiliation:
Univ. of California, Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA
H. Dreysse
Affiliation:
Univ. de Nancy, Laboratoire de Physique du Solide, Nancy, France
D. De Fontaine
Affiliation:
Univ. of California, Berkeley, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Berkeley, CA
Get access

Abstract

In order to calculate thermodynamic properties of disordered alloys, it is necessary to extract certain parameters (namely effective cluster interactions) from electronic band structure models. Several of these methods exist, thus necessitating a comparison of their accuracy and convergence. Direct configurational averaging is performed in both a canonical (concentration-dependent) and grand canonical (concentration- independent) scheme. These results are compared with those derived from the Connolly-Williams Method and “exact” results obtained on a simple, tight-binding, d-band model.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 193: Symposium Q – Atomic Scale Calculations of Structure in Materials , 1990 , 183
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Sanchez, J. M. and Fontaine, D. de, Phys, Rev. B 17, 2926 (1978).Google Scholar
2. Dreysse, H., Berera, A., Wille, L., and de Fontaine, D., Phys. Rev. B 39, 2442 (1989).Google Scholar
3. Haydock, R., Solid State Phys. 35, 215 (1980).Google Scholar
4. Burke, N. R., Surf Sci. 58, 349 (1976).Google Scholar
5. Connolly, J. W. D. and Williams, A. R. Phys, Rev. B. 27 5168 (1983).Google Scholar