Calculation update! New properties have been added to the website for dislocation monopole core structures, dynamic relaxes of both crystal and liquid phases, and melting temperatures! Currently, the results for these properties predominately focus on EAM-style potentials, but the results will be updated for other potentials as the associated calculations finish. Feel free to give us feedback on the new properties so we can improve their representations as needed.
Warning! Note that elemental potentials taken from alloy descriptions may not work well for the pure species. This is particularly true if the elements were fit for compounds instead of being optimized separately. As with all interatomic potentials, please check to make sure that the performance is adequate for your problem.
Citation: A. Fraile, S. Cuesta-López, A. Caro, D. Schwen, and J. Manuel Perlado (2014), "Interatomic potential for the compound-forming Li-Pb liquid alloy", Journal of Nuclear Materials448(1–3), 103–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.01.037.
Abstract: Atomistic simulations of liquid alloys face the challenge of correctly modeling basic thermodynamic properties. In this work we present an interatomic potential for this system, as well as a study of physical properties of Li-Pb alloys. Despite the complexity due to Li-Pb being a compound forming system where charge transfer is expected, we show here how the empirical EAM formalism is able to satisfactorily describe several physical properties in a wide range of Li concentration. Application of our potential to Li-Pb eutectic allows us to correctly predict many physical properties observed experimentally and calculated with ab initio techniques, providing in this way a potential suitable for future studies in the context of tritium breeder blanket designs in Fusion technology.
Citation: A. Fraile, and T. Polcar (2020), "Volume and pressure of helium bubbles inside liquid Pb16Li. A molecular dynamics study", Nuclear Fusion60(4), 046018. DOI: 10.1088/1741-4326/ab73c2.
Abstract: The behaviour of helium impurities inside metals has been well studied in the last 30 years, however, little attention has been devoted to helium atoms inside liquid metals. Here we have investigated the nucleation and coalescence processes of helium atoms inside liquid eutectic lithium-lead alloys using atomistic simulations. Several key findings regarding He bubbles inside liquid PbLi eutectic are presented. The radius versus the number of atoms has been calculated in the temperature range 600-1000 K. The trend can be fitted and likely extrapolated to larger bubbles (micrometer size). The value of thermal expansion of He bubbles is given as well and compared to the thermal expansion of bulk He. The pressure inside He bubbles has been calculated as a function of bubble size. Finally, the importance of accurate interatomic potentials for the He-metal interaction is discussed.
This page displays computed properties for the 2014--Fraile-A--Pb-Li--LAMMPS--ipr1 implementation of the 2014--Fraile-A-Cuesta-Lopez-S-Caro-A-et-al--Pb-Li potential. Computed values for other implementations can be seen by clicking on the links below:
Plots of the potential energy vs interatomic spacing, r, are shown below for all diatom sets associated with the interatomic potential. This calculation provides insights into the functional form of the potential's two-body interactions. A system consisting of only two atoms is created, and the potential energy is evaluated for the atoms separated by 0.02 Å <= r <= 6.0> Å in intervals of 0.02 Å. Two plots are shown: one for the "standard" interaction distance range, and one for small values of r. The small r plot is useful for determining whether the potential is suitable for radiation studies.
Clicking on the image of a plot will open an interactive version of it in a new tab. The underlying data for the plots can be downloaded by clicking on the links above each plot.
Notes and Disclaimers:
These values are meant to be guidelines for comparing potentials, not the absolute values for any potential's properties. Values listed here may change if the calculation methods are updated due to improvements/corrections. Variations in the values may occur for variations in calculation methods, simulation software and implementations of the interatomic potentials.
As this calculation only involves two atoms, it neglects any multi-body interactions that may be important in molecules, liquids and crystals.
Plots of potential energy vs interatomic spacing, r, are shown below for a number of crystal structures. The structures are generated based on the ideal atomic positions and b/a and c/a lattice parameter ratios for a given crystal prototype. The size of the system is then uniformly scaled, and the energy calculated without relaxing the system. To obtain these plots, values of r are evaluated every 0.02 Å up to 6 Å.
Clicking on the image of a plot will open an interactive version of it in a new tab. The underlying data for the plots can be downloaded by clicking on the links above each plot.
Notes and Disclaimers:
These values are meant to be guidelines for comparing potentials, not the absolute values for any potential's properties. Values listed here may change if the calculation methods are updated due to improvements/corrections. Variations in the values may occur for variations in calculation methods, simulation software and implementations of the interatomic potentials.
The minima identified by this calculation do not guarantee that the associated crystal structures will be stable since no relaxation is performed.
2020-12-18. Descriptions, tables and plots updated to reflect that the energy values are the measuredper atom potential energy rather than cohesive energy as some potentials have non-zero isolated atom energies.
2019-02-04. Values regenerated with even r spacings of 0.02 Å, and now include values less than 2 Å when possible. Updated calculation method and parameters enhance compatibility with more potential styles.
2019-04-26. Results for hcp, double hcp, α-As and L10 prototypes regenerated from different unit cell representations. Only α-As results show noticable (>1e-5 eV) difference due to using a different coordinate for Wykoff site c position.
2018-06-13. Values for MEAM potentials corrected. Dynamic versions of the plots moved to separate pages to improve page loading. Cosmetic changes to how data is shown and updates to the documentation.
2017-01-11. Replaced png pictures with interactive Bokeh plots. Data regenerated with 200 values of r instead of 300.
2016-09-28. Plots for binary structures added. Data and plots for elemental structures regenerated. Data values match the values of the previous version. Data table formatting slightly changed to increase precision and ensure spaces between large values. Composition added to plot title and structure names made longer.
Computed lattice constants and cohesive/potential energies are displayed for a variety of crystal structures. The values displayed here are obtained using the following process.
Initial crystal structure guesses are taken from:
The iprPy E_vs_r_scan calculation results (shown above) by identifying all energy minima along the measured curves for a given crystal prototype + composition.
Structures in the Materials Project and OQMD DFT databases.
All initial guesses are relaxed using three independent methods using a 10x10x10 supercell:
"box": The system's lattice constants are adjusted to zero pressure without internal relaxations using the iprPy relax_box calculation with a strainrange of 1e-6.
"static": The system's lattice and atomic positions are statically relaxed using the iprPy relax_static calculation with a minimization force tolerance of 1e-10 eV/Angstrom.
"dynamic": The system's lattice and atomic positions are dynamically relaxed for 10000 timesteps of 0.01 ps using the iprPy relax_dynamic calculation with an nph integration plus Langevin thermostat. The final configuration is then used as input in running an iprPy relax_static calculation with a minimization force tolerance of 1e-10 eV/Angstrom.
The relaxed structures obtained from #2 are then evaluated using the spglib package to identify an ideal crystal unit cell based on the results.
The space group information of the ideal unit cells is compared to the space group information of the corresponding reference structures to identify which structures transformed upon relaxation. The structures that did not transform to a different structure are listed in the table(s) below. The "method" field indicates the most rigorous relaxation method where the structure did not transform. The space group information is also used to match the DFT reference structures to the used prototype, where possible.
The cohesive energy, Ecoh, is calculated from the measured potential energy per atom, Epot$, by subtracting the isolated energy averaged across all atoms in the unit cell. The isolated atom energies of each species model is obtained either by evaluating a single atom atomic configuration, or by identifying the first energy plateau from the diatom scan calculations for r > 2 Å.
The calculation methods used are implemented into iprPy as the following calculation styles
These values are meant to be guidelines for comparing potentials, not the absolute values for any potential's properties. Values listed here may change if the calculation methods are updated due to improvements/corrections. Variations in the values may occur for variations in calculation methods, simulation software and implementations of the interatomic potentials.
The presence of any structures in this list does not guarantee that those structures are stable. Also, the lowest energy structure may not be included in this list.
Multiple values for the same crystal structure but different lattice constants are possible. This is because multiple energy minima are possible for a given structure and interatomic potential. Having multiple energy minima for a structure does not necessarily make the potential "bad" as unwanted configurations may be unstable or correspond to conditions that may not be relevant to the problem of interest (eg. very high strains).
2025-07-02. All "mp-" reference structure calculations were re-relaxed using the updated Materials Project database rather than the original database structures. Also, a bug was fixed that caused the "static" relaxations to occasionally throw unnecessary errors. This was fixed and all affected calculations were reset and performed again.
2022-05-27. The "box" method results have all been redone with an updated methodology more suited for non-orthogonal systems.
2020-12-18. Cohesive energies have been corrected by making them relative to the energies of the isolated atoms. The previous cohesive energy values are now listed as the potential energies.
2019-06-07. Structures with positive or near zero cohesive energies removed from the display tables. All values still present in the raw data files.
2019-04-26. Calculations now computed for each implementation. Results for hcp, double hcp, α-As and L10 prototypes regenerated from different unit cell representations.
2018-06-14. Methodology completely changed affecting how the information is displayed. Calculations involving MEAM potentials corrected.
2016-09-28. Values for simple compounds added. All identified energy minima for each structure are listed. The existing elemental data was regenerated. Most values are consistent with before, but some differences have been noted. Specifically, variations are seen with some values for potentials where the elastic constants don't vary smoothly near the equilibrium state. Additionally, the inclusion of some high-energy structures has changed based on new criteria for identifying when structures have relaxed to another structure.
2016-04-07. Values for elemental crystal structures added. Only values for the global energy minimum of each unique structure given.