research papers
The
of gold: point defect concentrations and premelting in a facecentred cubic metal^{a}Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
^{*}Correspondence email: m.pamato@ucl.ac.uk
On the basis of ab initio computer simulations, premelting phenomena have been suggested to occur in the elastic properties of hexagonal closepacked iron under the conditions of the Earth's inner core just before melting. The extent to which these premelting effects might also occur in the physical properties of facecentred cubic metals has been investigated here under more experimentally accessible conditions for gold, allowing for comparison with future computer simulations of this material. The of gold has been determined by Xray powder diffraction from 40 K up to the melting point (1337 K). For the entire temperature range investigated, the unitcell volume can be represented in the following way: a secondorder Grüneisen approximation to the zeropressure volumetric equation of state, with the internal energy calculated via a Debye model, is used to represent the of the `perfect crystal'. Gold shows a nonlinear increase in that departs from this Grüneisen–Debye model prior to melting, which is probably a result of the generation of point defects over a large range of temperatures, beginning at T/T_{m} > 0.75 (a similar homologous T to where softening has been observed in the elastic moduli of Au). Therefore, the thermodynamic theory of point defects was used to include the additional volume of the vacancies at high temperatures (`real crystal'), resulting in the following fitted parameters: Q = (V_{0}K_{0})/γ = 4.04 (1) × 10^{−18} J, V_{0} = 67.1671 (3) Å^{3}, b = (K_{0}′ − 1)/2 = 3.84 (9), θ_{D} = 182 (2) K, (v^{f}/Ω)exp(s^{f}/k_{B}) = 1.8 (23) and h^{f} = 0.9 (2) eV, where V_{0} is the unitcell volume at 0 K, K_{0} and K_{0}′ are the isothermal incompressibility and its first derivative with respect to pressure (evaluated at zero pressure), γ is a Grüneisen parameter, θ_{D} is the Debye temperature, v^{f}, h^{f} and s^{f} are the vacancy formation volume, and respectively, Ω is the average volume per atom, and k_{B} is Boltzmann's constant.
Keywords: premelting phenomena; thermal expansion; gold; vacancies.
1. Introduction
Although the Earth's inner core is recognized to be made of an iron–nickel alloy with a few percent of light elements (Birch, 1952; Allègre et al., 1995; McDonough & Sun, 1995), its exact structure and composition remain unknown. Seismological models of the Earth's inner core do not agree with mineralogical models derived from ab initio calculations, which predict shearwave velocities up to 30% greater than seismically observed values (e.g. Vočadlo, 2007; Vočadlo et al., 2009; Belonoshko et al., 2007; Martorell, Brodholt et al., 2013). Several proposals have been made to account for such differences, including, for instance, unusually large compositional effects, the presence of a pervasive partial melt throughout the inner core, crystal alignment, defects and grain boundaries, and anelasticity (e.g. Antonangeli et al., 2004; Vočadlo, 2007; Belonoshko et al., 2007). Another possible explanation for the observed low shear wave velocities was proposed by Martorell, Vočadlo et al. (2013), who reported a dramatic nonlinear reduction in the elastic constants of hexagonal closepacked (h.c.p.) iron under a hydrostatic pressure of 360 GPa, just before melting (T/T_{m} > 0.96, where T is the temperature and T_{m} is the melting temperature). This was attributed to `premelting' effects, thought to be associated with the formation of defects in the structure. Although melting is commonly classified as a from solid to liquid without critical phenomena, experimental studies indicate the possibility of premonitory effects in the physical properties of a crystal at temperatures close to the melting point, so called premelting phenomena (Mair et al., 1976). Comparison of the melting curve of iron (Sola & Alfè, 2009) with the slope of the geotherm suggests that the Earth's entire inner core is very close to melting, with a value of T/T_{m} = 0.988 at the centre of the inner core (Martorell, Vočadlo et al., 2013). Thus, the core does indeed lie in a range of T/T_{m} where the velocities might be expected to be strongly decreased near melting. Premelting softening has been suggested for Fe_{7}C_{3}, a proposed candidate component of the Earth's inner core, just prior to melting at inner core conditions (Li et al., 2016). As in the case of pure iron, the calculated soundwave velocities agreed with seismological data; however, in the case of Fe_{7}C_{3}, the density was found to be too low (by ∼8%) compared to geophysical profiles (Dziewonski & Anderson, 1981).
To date, the computer calculations reported by Martorell, Vočadlo et al. (2013) and Li et al. (2016) are the only results on premelting of a metal that are directly applicable to the Earth's inner core, although computer simulations of another h.c.p. metal, Mg, have also suggested that pronounced changes in density and elastic moduli occur just prior to melting at T/T_{m} > ∼0.97 (Bavli, 2009; Bavli et al., 2011). In the context of planetary cores, it is therefore essential to systematically investigate such phenomena not only for a range of pressures and temperatures (P−T) at inner core conditions, but also for iron alloyed with both nickel and light elements in a multicomponent system. However, measuring the pressure dependence of premelting effects at such conditions and to the required precision is extremely challenging. Premelting effects have been observed or are suggested to occur in a range of physical properties in other metals. For example, the of tin has been experimentally shown to decrease by more than 50% at temperatures within about 1% of its melting point (Nadal & Le Poac, 2003). Also, experiments have shown enhanced temperature dependence close to melting in the elastic modulus (C_{44}) of aluminium (Gordon & Granato, 2004, and references therein), in the electrical conductivities of lead (Pokorny & Grimvall, 1984) and of iron (Secco & Schloessin, 1989), and in the of sodium single crystals (Adlhart et al., 1974).
In light of this, we aim to investigate to what extent premelting behaviour may occur in the physical properties of metals by a combination of ab initio computer simulations and experiments at accessible conditions. We also wish to determine to what extent changes in elastic moduli with temperature are correlated with changes in the unitcell parameters, since the latter are more easily measured as a function of pressure and temperature. Here, we report precise measurements at atmospheric pressure of the unitcell parameters and the coefficient of a facecentred cubic (f.c.c.) metal, pure gold, from low temperatures (40 K) up to the melting point, approaching T_{m} in much finer temperature steps than have been reported previously (Simmons & Balluffi, 1962; Touloukian et al., 1975). Gold is an ideal test material since it crystallizes in a simple monatomic (i.e. with one atom in the primitive unit cell) f.c.c. structure (space group Fmm); it is chemically inert and has a relatively low melting temperature (1337.33 K; Hieu & Ha, 2013). The pressure–volume–temperature equation of state for gold has been extensively studied and several equation of state (EoS) models have been proposed (e.g. Anderson et al., 1989; Jamieson et al., 1982; Tsuchiya, 2003; Heinz & Jeanloz, 1984; Shim et al., 2002; Yokoo et al., 2009). Furthermore, premelting effects have been suggested to occur in the elastic properties of noble metals, such as gold and palladium, which exhibit large departures from linearity at elevated temperatures (Yoshihara et al., 1987; Collard & McLellan, 1991).
Precise measurements of the temperature dependence of the lattice parameter of Au, up to melting, have been made by Simmons & Balluffi (1962) during their determination of the equilibrium concentration of vacancies in Au by differential dilatometry. In this method (e.g. Siegel, 1978; Wollenberger, 1996; Kraftmakher, 1998), the relative changes in the bulk volume of a crystalline sample (ΔV_{B}/V_{B}) and also in its unitcell volume (ΔV_{C}/V_{C}) are determined, ideally from the same specimen under exactly the same temperature conditions. Since the number of atoms in the sample must be conserved, it can be readily shown that the vacancy concentration, N_{vac}/N_{atoms}, is given by (ΔV_{B}/V_{B}) – (ΔV_{C}/V_{C}). Differential dilatometry thus provides an absolute method for the determination of vacancy concentrations, but such experiments are not without their difficulties, in particular with regards to the measurement of ΔV_{B}/V_{B} to the required accuracy. Large specimens are generally required; for example, Simmons & Balluffi (1962) employed a gold bar of 99.999% purity and size 12.7 × 12.7 × 500 mm to measure the relative change in its length, ΔL/L, to ∼1 × 10^{−5}. Such measurements would be extremely difficult to perform sufficiently well at high pressure.
Because of the experimental difficulties inherent in differential dilatometry, an alternative approach to determining the formation parameters of thermally induced defects is to do this via a detailed analysis of the temperature dependence of the of the material at high temperatures. In some of the earliest work in this area, Lawson (1950) proposed that the anomalous observed in a number of substances (especially AgBr and AgCl) just below their melting points was the result of premelting phenomena associated with thermally generated defects. For NaCl, Merriam et al. (1962) assumed that the hightemperature was governed by two terms: a `normal' component (assumed to vary linearly with temperature) and an `anomalous' component from the thermally generated defects, which increased exponentially with temperature. More recently, Wang and Reeber have applied a similar though more elaborate approach to ionic crystals (Wang & Reeber, 1994) and to both bodycentred cubic (Wang & Reeber, 1998) and f.c.c. metals (Wang & Reeber, 2000). In this method, described in detail in §3.4, the behaviour of the unitcell volume of the `real' crystal is modelled in terms of that expected from a `perfect' (i.e. defectfree) crystal, modified by a term describing the contribution to the from thermally induced vacancies. Provided that the assumptions inherent in determining the properties of the `perfect' crystal are valid, this method therefore provides a route whereby quantities such as the vacancy formation can be determined from a single set of measurements.
2. Methods
For a successful determination of any premelting effects on the density and Kα_{1} incident beam, and can be fitted with environmental stages covering the range from 40 to 1373 K (with a readily achievable temperature resolution of 1 K). The Xray tube was operated at 40 kV and 30 mA. In the incident and diffracted beam optics, variable width divergence and antiscatter slits were used, together with a 10 mm wide beam mask in the incident beam, in order to illuminate a constant 10 × 8.5 mm area of the sample; 0.04 radian Soller slits were present in both the incident and diffracted beams to reduce the axial divergences and an `X'Celerator' positionsensitive detector was used. Data collections were performed over a 2θ range of 40–151° below 298 K and 40–154° above 298 K, with collection times of ∼105 min and ∼55 min at each temperature, respectively. After the experiments reported here, the zero 2θ angle of the diffractometer was determined using an Si standard (NBS SRM640). Diffraction data between 40 and 300 K were obtained using an Oxford Cryosystems PheniXFL lowtemperature stage (a modified version of the standard PheniX stage; Wood et al., 2018), and data between 298 and 1373 K were collected using an Anton Paar HTK1200N heated stage. The powdered Au sample was dispersed on top of MgO (Aldrich 99.99%), which helps to constrain the specimen displacement and 2θ offset in the Rietveld refinements and also provides a reservoir for Au when it melts. The MgO was fired overnight at 1073 K in air before use. Before the Xray measurements were collected, the sample (MgO + Au dispersed across the top) was annealed for 300 min at 773 K in the diffractometer (in the Anton Paar HTK1200N heated stage) in order to reduce the full width at halfmaximum of the diffraction peaks from Au.
of Au we need to measure precisely the unitcell parameters up to the melting point, with fine temperature spacing as the melting point is approached. The measurements (on Au from ESPI Metals, 99.999% purity) were performed using a PANalytical X'Pert Pro powder diffractometer. This instrument, operating in Bragg–Brentano parafocusing reflection geometry, is equipped with an incident beam Ge(111) Johansson geometry focusing monochromator, producing a CoBelow 298 K, in the PheniXFL cold stage, the sample was held in helium exchange gas at atmospheric pressure. The sample was initially cooled at 2 K min^{−1} to 80 K and then at 1 K min^{−1} to 40 K; subsequent increases in temperature were made manually at 2 K min^{−1} and the sample was then allowed to equilibrate for at least 10 min before the diffraction patterns were collected. Measurements were made on warming at intervals of 10 K from 40 to 200 K and intervals of 20 K from 200 to 300 K. Above 298 K, measurements were performed in air and the sample was heated at 5 K min^{−1}, after which it was equilibrated for a time which varied from 25 min (at 323 K) to 6 min (at 413 K) and above. Measurements were made at intervals of 20 K between 200 and 1273 K, 10 K between 1273 and 1313 K, and 2 K up to the point where all of the gold was molten (1339 K). The temperature control was better than ±0.1 K throughout the entire analysis. The intensities of the diffraction patterns were converted from variable to fixed divergence slit geometry using the software supplied by the manufacturer, after which the data were analysed by using the GSAS suite of programmes (Larson & Von Dreele, 2000; Toby, 2001). In addition to the cell parameters of Au and MgO, the isotropic atomic displacement parameters, scale factor, sample shift and profile shape parameters were varied during the fitting procedure. In total, 23 variables were included in the with ∼6660 data points in each diffraction pattern, the effective step size being ∼0.017° in 2θ.
Owing to a small offset between the data collected using the high and lowtemperature stages, the hightemperature results were scaled to match the lowtemperature volumes, by minimizing the residuals of a secondorder polynomial passing through the 200–280 K (coldstage) and 313–393 K (hotstage) data. The resulting scaling factor used for the hightemperature data is 0.99984. This scaling has minimal effect on the fitted values of the variable parameters in the models used to describe the thermal expansion.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Lattice parameters of gold as a function of temperature
A typical diffraction pattern of Au, collected at room temperature, is presented in Fig. 1.
Au diffraction patterns at high 2θ angles and at four different temperatures approaching melting are shown in Fig. 2. Au peaks are present in the diffraction pattern at 1337 K but disappear at 1339 K, indicating that the gold melted between 1337 and 1339 K. This is in perfect agreement with the melting temperature reported in the literature (1337.33 K; Hieu & Ha, 2013), demonstrating the accuracy of the heating stage thermometry. Given the very small amount of Au still present at 1337 K (Fig. 2), we did not include this point in the subsequent analysis of the data.
The evolution of the unitcell volume of gold as a function of temperature is reported in Fig. 3, and the lattice parameters and unitcell volumes are tabulated in Table S1. Our results appear to be in excellent agreement with those of Simmons & Balluffi (1962) for gold of nominally the same purity; for example, at 1333 K the change in lattice parameters relative to its value at 293 K found in the present study (0.018153) corresponds exactly to that tabulated by Simmons & Balluffi (0.01815).
3.2. A simple model of the above room temperature
The hightemperature behaviour of gold was modelled using several approaches. The temperature evolution of the volume above room temperature can be expressed, according to Fei (1995), as
where V_{Tr} is the volume at a chosen reference temperature T_{r} (300 K in this case) and is the volumetric coefficient, given by a linear expression of the form
The resulting values for the data from 298 to 1335 K, fitted in EoSFit7 (Angel et al., 2014), are V_{Tr} = 67.854 (2) Å^{3}, a_{0} = 3.62 (2) × 10^{−5} K^{−1} and a_{1} = 1.88 (3) × 10^{−8} K^{−2} and are in fairly good agreement with the values V_{Tr} = 67.85 Å^{3} (fixed), a_{0} = 3.179 (139) × 10^{−5} K^{−1} and a_{1} = 1.477 (310) × 10^{−8} K^{−2} reported by Hirose et al. (2008). The volumetric coefficient, , at ambient conditions (300 K and 1 bar; 1 bar = 10^{5} Pa) is predicted to be 4.18 (2) × 10^{−5} K^{−1} using equation (2), and is higher than that reported by Hirose et al. (2008) (3.62 × 10^{−5} K^{−1}), but is in excellent agreement with the value quoted by Simmons & Balluffi (1962) (equivalent to 4.17 × 10^{−5} K^{−1} for the volumetric expansion coefficient), and is in good agreement with other values determined both experimentally (4.28 × 10^{−5} K^{−1}; Touloukian et al., 1975; Anderson et al., 1989) and from theoretical calculations (4.52 × 10^{−5} K^{−1}; Tsuchiya, 2003). At 1335 K, the expansion coefficient on this model is 6.13 (2) × 10^{−5} K^{−1}.
3.3. Grüneisen–Debye models of thermal expansion
A more physically meaningful parameterization of experimental V(T) dependency, covering the entire temperature range, can be obtained using the Grüneisen approximations for the zeropressure equation of state, in which the effects of are considered to be equivalent to elastic strain induced by thermal pressure (e.g. Wallace, 1998). This approach allows investigation of the dynamics of the material by enabling evaluation of the Debye temperature. The secondorder approximation, derived on the basis of a Taylor series expansion of (PV) to second order in ΔV, is commonly reported as being more appropriate for the fitting and extrapolation of highertemperature data (Vočadlo et al., 2002; LindsayScott et al., 2007; Trots et al., 2012; Hunt et al., 2017) and takes the form (Wallace, 1998)
where
and
In equations (3)–(5), V_{0} is the hypothetical volume at T = 0 K, γ is a Grüneisen parameter, assumed to be pressure and temperature independent, and K_{0 } is the isothermal incompressibility at T = 0 K and P = 0 GPa. is its first pressure derivative, also evaluated at T = 0 K and P = 0 GPa.
In cases when the behaviour of V(T) is more complex, a thirdorder Grüneisen approximation (see Wood et al., 2004) can be employed, which takes the form
where
is the second derivative of the isothermal incompressibility with respect to pressure, at T = 0 K and P = 0 GPa.
The internal energy, U(T), required in equations (3) and (6) can be calculated using the Debye model to describe the energy of thermal vibrations:
where N is the number of atoms in the (in this case N = 4), k_{B} is Boltzmann's constant and θ_{D} is the Debye temperature.
The solid line in Fig. 3 shows the result obtained from fitting equation (3) to the data by weighted nonlinear least squares, with resulting values for the four fitted constants of Q = 4.110 (8) × 10^{−18} J, V_{0} = 67.1657 (4) Å^{3}, b = 4.28 (4) and θ_{D} = 173 (2) K.
The Debye temperature of Au determined from equation (3), 173 (2) K, is in very good agreement with values reported in the literature, which range from 165 to 170 K, from calorimetric data and derived from elastic measurements (e.g. Neighbours & Alers, 1958, and references therein; Anderson et al., 1989).
An estimate of the first pressure derivative of the incompressibility can be obtained directly from the coefficient b in equation (3) (see Table 1). The resulting value, = 9.57 (8), is, however, higher than published values for , which range between 5 and 6.2 (Anderson et al., 1989; Jamieson et al., 1982; Tsuchiya, 2003; Heinz & Jeanloz, 1984; Shim et al., 2002; Yokoo et al., 2009). The incompressibility itself can also be estimated from equation (3), provided the Grüneisen parameter is known. Grüneisen parameter values reported in the literature are between 2.95 and 3.215 (Anderson et al., 1989; Jamieson et al., 1982; Tsuchiya, 2003; Heinz & Jeanloz, 1984; Shim et al., 2002; Yokoo et al., 2009). If we apply the minimum value of γ (2.95) in the present case, we obtain a value of K_{0 } = 180.5 (4) GPa, which is in very good agreement with the values of 180 GPa at 0 K and 167.5 GPa at 300 K reported by Yokoo et al. (2009), whereas using the maximum value of 3.215 we obtain K_{0 } = 196.7 (4) GPa.

Although equation (3) provides a good basis within which to assess the behaviour of the material, the theory suffers from several deficiencies. In particular, a harmonic approximation is used to calculate U(T). Also, a limitation of the approach is that Q and b are assumed to be temperature independent, whereas in reality the Grüneisen parameter has some temperature dependence (e.g. Vočadlo et al., 2002). These deficiencies in the model can be reflected in the fitted values of the four parameters, which should therefore be treated carefully. However, it can be seen that equation (3) provides an excellent fit up to about 1200 K, above which point the calculated curve is not sufficiently steep (see Fig. 4). In an effort to improve the fit we tried including the electronic contribution to the C_{el}, using a linear term for C_{el}(T); however, this led to an essentially identical fit and did not improve the agreement at high temperatures. The deviation from the model at high temperatures may arise from the failure of the harmonic Debye approximation as anharmonicity becomes progressively more important (Vočadlo et al., 2002) or may arise from other contributions to the such as the formation of defects; these possibilities are discussed below.
To account for possible anharmonicity and for the insufficient curvature in the region immediately below melting (T_{m}), we also employed a thirdorder Grüneisen approximation (see Wood et al., 2004) [equation (6)]. For the purpose of comparison, and in order to examine the most suitable method for describing the behaviour of the perfect crystal of Au at high temperatures, the values of the fitted variable parameters in the various equations employed are reported in Table 1.
The differences between observed and calculated volumes, employing either the second or thirdorder Grüneisen approximations [equations (3) and (6)], are also displayed in Fig. 5.
The thirdorder approximation appears to provide a better fit of the data up to 1300 K, where the maximum volume residuals are less than 0.005 Å^{3}, as opposed to the secondorder approximation which displays deviations up to 0.01 Å^{3} (Fig. 5). At temperatures close to melting, however, both models fail to represent the observed data, where a distinct systematic deviation of up to 0.02 and 0.01 Å^{3} (twice the maximum deviations below 1300 K) is observed for the second and thirdorder approximations, respectively.
By fitting equation (6) to the data for V(T) we obtained values of the constants Q = 3.97 (2) × 10^{−18} J, V_{0} = 67.1678 (3) Å^{3}, b = 2.8 (2), θ_{D} = 188 (2) K and c = −0.44 (5) × 10^{19} J^{−1}. Although the thirdorder Grüneisen approximation appears to provide a better fit to the data (see Figs. 4 and 5), a Debye temperature of 188 (2) K is obtained through this approach, which is high compared to the more commonly reported values of 165–170 K (Anderson et al., 1989; Jamieson et al., 1982; Tsuchiya, 2003; Heinz & Jeanloz, 1984; Shim et al., 2002; Yokoo et al., 2009); if the parameter b in equation (6) is fixed at 3/2, corresponding to a value of = 4, an even higher Debye temperature of 216 (2) K is obtained.
The limitations of equation (6) are also reflected in the numerically large fitted value of the parameter c = −0.44 (5) × 10^{19} J^{−1}; by substituting the values of and = 6.6 [from equation (5)] in the relationship × we obtain = −100 (12). Even if we fix = 4, we obtain = −188 (2), which is much higher than the value resulting from the implied values of in many of the commonly used isothermal equations of state for Au. For example, by fitting a thirdorder Birch–Murnaghan equation to the data reported by Hirose et al. (2008) we obtained = −0.04, which corresponds to = −6.5 (fixing K_{0 } at 167 GPa). In particular, our resulting = −188 (2) value is much higher than that required by the thirdorder Birch–Murnaghan equation, where  [(3  K_{0})(4  K_{0} ) + 35/9 ] =  3.9 for = 4 (e.g. Angel, 2000). Thus, although Fig. 5 appears to show that the thirdorder Grüneisen approximation does a better job in fitting the data, analysis of the fitted parameters above gives a contrary conclusion, i.e. the fitted parameters give a poorer representation of the true material properties.
3.4. The effect of thermally induced vacancies on the thermal expansion
At very high homologous temperatures, a further disadvantage of the Grüneisen–Debye model discussed above is the fact that it does not consider the presence of thermally generated defects in a material. These defects can produce a significant contribution to the e.g. Lawson, 1950; Merriam et al., 1962; Simmons & Balluffi, 1962; Gilder & Wallmark, 1969; Siegel, 1978; Wollenberger, 1996; Kraftmakher, 1998). Although in some circumstances the formation of interstitials has been found to have a significant effect on the physical properties of f.c.c. metals (e.g. Gordon & Granato, 2004), in our estimation of the contribution from thermally induced defects to the of Au, we have assumed that only the formation of monovacancies is significant, as it is generally considered that in simple closepacked structures the formation of vacancies will dominate over formation of interstitials as the energy required is much lower (e.g. Kraftmakher, 1998; Simmons & Balluffi, 1962).
especially as the temperature approaches the melting point where the defect concentration is greatest (The ) whereby a quasiharmonic model [in this case the Grüneisen–Debye model employed earlier, equation (3), rather than the summation over Einstein oscillators used by Wang and Reeber] represents the of the perfect crystal, and the contributions from lattice defects at high temperature (here termed the real crystal) are described by the thermodynamic theory of point defects. The expected volume contribution from such defects is expressed as follows:
of a crystal at high temperature can therefore be treated as having contributions both from the perfect crystal and from its thermal defects. Here we use the formalism reported by Wang & Reeber (2000where V_{p}(T) is the volume of a perfect crystal, v^{f}, h^{f} and s^{f} are the formation volume, and of the point defect, respectively, is the average volume per atom, and k_{B} is Boltzmann's constant; and s^{f} are assumed to be constants.
If we use the Grüneisen approximations for the zeropressure equation of state with the Debye approximation of the internal energy [equations (3)–(5)] to describe the volume for a perfect crystal, V_{p}(T), the volume of the real crystal is
In fitting equation (10) to the data for V(T) we obtained Q = 4.04 (1) × 10^{−18} J, V_{0} = 67.1671 (3) Å^{3}, b = 3.84 (9), θ_{D} = 182 (2) K, = 1.8 (23) and h^{f} = 0.9 (2) eV. The of formation obtained matches the values reported in the literature, which range from 0.6 to 0.962 eV (see Wollenberger, 1996; Kraftmakher, 1998, and references therein). The incompressibility and its pressure derivative, estimated from equations (3) and (4), assuming γ = 2.95, resulted in the following values: K_{0 } = 177.5 (5) GPa and = 8.7 (2).
The observed and calculated volumes and their differences, taking into account the contribution from lattice defects, are displayed in Fig. 6. An excellent fit to the data over the entire range, particularly near melting, is clearly visible, with maximum volume residuals less than 0.005 Å^{3}. In particular, at temperatures above 600 K the residuals are not systematic with temperature, unlike those displayed when using the second or thirdorder Grüneisen approximations (see Fig. 5).
The volume difference between the real and perfect Au crystals [i.e. the difference in the fitted values of equations (10) and (3)] is reported in Fig. 7. The presence of defects in Au has a clear effect above 800 K, and the difference between the real and perfect crystals reaches almost 0.1% at T_{m}. Although this difference in volume is minor, it should be noted that ΔV becomes significant at roughly the same temperature where deviations from linearity were observed in the elastic properties of gold (Collard & McLellan, 1991).
The quality of fit of the model to the measured data is also reflected in the shows the volumetric coefficient of Au obtained from
Fig. 8where T is the temperature and dV/dT is the rate of volume change at T. Given the variable spacing of the data points (20–2 K spacing, see Table S1), we chose a fixed window of 20 K, through which we fitted a first or secondorder polynomial to derive the experimental values. The is reported at the midpoint of the window. The order of the polynomial was 1 when the data spacing was 20 K; otherwise it was 2.
It can be seen that the fit resulting from equation (10) corresponds well to the data points shown in the figure, whereas equation (3) systematically underestimates the expansion coefficient above ∼800 K.
Au is considered to be one of the most favourable metals for studies of vacancy formation. The equilibrium vacancy concentration at the melting point, as determined previously, ranges from 7 × 10^{−4} (differential dilatometry) to 4 × 10^{−3} (specific heat) – see e.g. Table 11 of Kraftmakher (1998). Siegel (1978) reported an equilibrium total vacancy concentration at the melting temperature of 7 × 10^{−4}, with a monovacancy formation of 0.94 eV and a monovacancy formation of 0.7k_{B}. In fitting the data for V(T) to equation (10) we obtained = 1.8 (23) and h^{f} = 0.9 (2) eV. To calculate the vacancy concentration from our results it is then necessary to assume a value for , the ratio of the vacancy formation volume to the atomic volume. Emrick (1980) quotes a value of = 0.52 for close to room temperature but suggests that this might rise to = 0.65 at higher temperatures, a value that is also given by Seeger (1973). For = 0.52 and = 0.65 we obtain values of s^{f} = 1.26k_{B} and 1.03k_{B}, respectively. With these values, we can calculate the vacancy concentration from (Wollenberger, 1996)
At the melting temperature, we obtain N_{vac}/N_{atoms} = 1.5 × 10^{−3} (for = 0.52) and N_{vac}/N_{atoms} = 1.2 × 10^{−3} (for = 0.65), which is in fair agreement with the results of Simmons & Balluffi (1962) from differential dilatometry [7.2 (6) × 10^{−4}] and within the range of values for gold compiled by Kraftmakher (1998), determined by a variety of methods (7 × 10^{−4} to 40 × 10^{−4}). The expected temperature dependence of the vacancy concentration as determined in the present study and found previously by a variety of methods is shown in Fig. 9.
3.5. and of gold
A further check on the reliability of our
model is provided by considering the relationship between and heat capacity.The volumetric or isochoric C_{V}) is the change in internal energy with temperature, at constant volume (Poirier, 2000):
(The assumption of the Debye model for internal energy [equation (8)] therefore gives a molar of
where n is the number of atoms per formula unit and N_{A} is Avogadro's number. Experimental measurements of are usually made at constant pressure and the isobaric (C_{P}) is related to the isochoric by
where γ^{th} is the thermal Grüneisen parameter. In general, the of a system can be represented as the sum of various contributions (Safonova et al., 2016):
where C_{qh} is the Debye [equation (14)], C_{ah} is the contribution to the arising from the anharmonicity of vibrational motion of atoms, C_{el} is the electronic and C_{vac} and C_{int} are contributions from equilibrium point defects, namely vacancies and interstitial atoms, respectively.
In their estimation of contributions to the specific heat from lattice defects, Cordoba & Brooks (1971) assumed that only the formation of monovacancies and divacancies is significant; the contribution to C from the monovacancies is given by
where h_{f} is the of formation for a monovacancy and s_{f} is the of formation (Cordoba & Brooks, 1971).
In our analysis we did not include the electronic contribution to the specific heat as it is small and did not improve the fit at high temperatures. Balcerzak et al. (2014) reported that the electronic contribution amounts to 0.3% and up to 3.5% of the total specific heat at 100 and 1300 K, respectively, but according to Cordoba & Brooks (1971) the electronic contribution is only 0.1% at 1330 K.
Anharmonicity is usually considered as a plausible reason for the nonlinear increase in hightemperature specific heat and ). According to Cordoba & Brooks (1971), the contribution to the from anharmonic lattice vibrations only becomes significant at temperatures considerably above the Debye temperature, where the anharmonic contribution appears to be positive. However, these authors concluded that, within the uncertainties in the parameters used in calculating the excess the contribution could be zero or slightly negative.
of metals. However, almost all theoretical calculations of the anharmonicity predict these contributions to be approximately linear. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a nonlinear anharmonicity contribution to the specific heat is much larger than the linear term (Kraftmakher, 1998For our measurements, the volumetric α), Debye temperature (θ_{D}) and thus C_{V} are obtained directly from the fit of equation (10) to the data. We assume the Grüneisen parameter in equation (4) (γ) and the thermal Grüneisen parameter (γ^{th}) to be the same.
coefficient (The derived values of C_{P} for our data, including the effect of the thermal defects C_{vac}, are plotted in Fig. 10 and are compared with experimental data taken from the literature (e.g. Anderson et al., 1989; Shim et al., 2002; Tsuchiya, 2003; Yokoo et al., 2009); a remarkably good agreement between calculated and experimental values is observed even at the highest temperatures. However, Balcerzak et al. (2014) report calculated specific heat values that are different by up to 3% from the experimental results, where for T near T_{m}, the calculated specific heat is slightly higher than the experimental one. The same tendency has been observed by Yokoo et al. (2009).
4. Conclusions
We have experimentally determined the unitcell volume of Au from 40 K up to the melting point by Xray powder diffraction. Over the temperature range investigated, the behaviour of the material may be adequately described by a Grüneisen approximation to the zeropressure equation of state representing the T/T_{m} ≃ 1000/1337 ≃ 0.75, which is very similar to the temperature range where deviations from linearity have been observed in the elastic moduli (Collard & McLellan, 1991).
of the `perfect crystal', combined with the thermodynamic theory of point defects to include the contributions from lattice defects at high temperatures (`real crystal'). Au shows a nonlinear increase in prior to melting, which is likely to be a result of the thermally induced generation of point defects above 800 K. This takes the form of a smooth trend that departs from the Grüneisen–Debye model over a large temperature range, beginning atSupporting information
https://doi.org//10.1107/S1600576718002248/ks5577sup1.cif
contains datablocks MGO_AU_100K_RIETVELD_publ, MGO_AU_100K_RIETVELD_overall, MGO_AU_100K_RIETVELD_phase_1, MGO_AU_100K_RIETVELD_phase_2, MGO_AU_100K_RIETVELD_p_01. DOI:https://doi.org//10.1107/S1600576718002248/ks5577sup2.cif
contains datablocks MGO_AU_25C_RIETVELD_publ, MGO_AU_25C_RIETVELD_overall, MGO_AU_25C_RIETVELD_phase_1, MGO_AU_25C_RIETVELD_phase_2, MGO_AU_25C_RIETVELD_p_01. DOI:https://doi.org//10.1107/S1600576718002248/ks5577sup3.cif
contains datablocks MGO_AU_800C_RIETVELD_publ, MGO_AU_800C_RIETVELD_overall, MGO_AU_800C_RIETVELD_phase_1, MGO_AU_800C_RIETVELD_phase_2, MGO_AU_800C_RIETVELD_p_01. DOI:https://doi.org//10.1107/S1600576718002248/ks5577sup4.cif
contains datablocks MGO_AU_1054C_RIETVEL_publ, MGO_AU_1054C_RIETVEL_overall, MGO_AU_1054C_RIETVEL_phase_1, MGO_AU_1054C_RIETVEL_phase_2, MGO_AU_1054C_RIETVEL_p_01. DOI:Supplementary table. DOI: https://doi.org//10.1107/S1600576718002248/ks5577sup5.pdf
Funding information
The following funding is acknowledged: Natural Environment Research Council (grant No. NE/M015181/1; grant No. NE/K002902/1; grant No. NE/H003975/1); Science and Technology Facilities Council (grant No. ST/K000934/1).
References
Adlhart, W., Fritsch, G. & Lüsher, E. (1974). Phys. Lett. A, 48, 239–240. CrossRef Google Scholar
Allègre, C. J., Poirier, J. P., Humler, E. & Hofmann, A. W. (1995). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 134, 515–526. Google Scholar
Anderson, O. L., Isaak, D. G. & Yamamoto, S. (1989). J. Appl. Phys. 65, 1534–1543. CrossRef Google Scholar
Angel, R. J. (2000). Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 41, 35–59. CrossRef Google Scholar
Angel, R. J., GonzalezPlatas, J. & Alvaro, M. (2014). Z. Kristallgr. 229, 405–419. Google Scholar
Antonangeli, D., Occelli, F., Requardt, H., Badro, J., Fiquet, G. & Krisch, M. (2004). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 225, 243–251. CrossRef Google Scholar
Balcerzak, T., Szałowski, K. & Jaščur, M. (2014). J. Appl. Phys. 116, 043508. CrossRef Google Scholar
Barin, I. & Knacke, O. (1973). Thermochemical Properties of Inorganic Substances. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Bavli, P. (2009). PhD thesis, TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. Google Scholar
Bavli, P., Polturak, E. & Adler, J. (2011). Phys. Rev. B, 84, 235442. CrossRef Google Scholar
Belonoshko, A. B., Skorodumova, N. V., Davis, S., Osiptsov, A. N., Rosengren, A. & Johansson, B. (2007). Science, 316, 1603–1605. CrossRef Google Scholar
Birch, F. (1952). J. Geophys. Res. 57, 227–286. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Collard, S. M. & McLellan, R. B. (1991). Acta Metall. Mater. 39, 3143–3151. CrossRef Google Scholar
Cordoba, G. & Brooks, C. R. (1971). Phys. Status Solidi (A), 6, 581–595. CrossRef Google Scholar
Cotterill, R. M. J. (1961). Philos. Mag. 6, 1351–1362. CrossRef Google Scholar
DeSorbo, W. (1960). Phys. Rev. 117, 444–450. CrossRef Google Scholar
Dziewonski, A. M. & Anderson, D. L. (1981). Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25, 297–356. CrossRef Web of Science Google Scholar
Emrick, R. M. (1980). Phys. Rev. B, 22, 3563–3572. CrossRef Google Scholar
Fei, Y. (1995). Mineral Physics and Crystallography: A Handbook of Physical Constants, AGU Reference Shelf 2, Vol. 4, edited by T. J. Ahrens, pp. 29–44. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. Google Scholar
Fraikor, F. J. & Hirth, J. P. (1967). J. Appl. Phys. 38, 2312–2318. CrossRef Google Scholar
Gertsriken, S. D. & Slyusar, B. F. (1958). Fiz. Met. Met. 6, 1061–1069. Google Scholar
Gilder, H. M. & Wallmark, G. N. (1969). Phys. Rev. 182, 771–777. CrossRef Google Scholar
Gordon, C. A. & Granato, A. V. (2004). Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 370, 83–87. CrossRef Google Scholar
Heinz, D. L. & Jeanloz, R. (1984). J. Appl. Phys. 55, 885–893. CrossRef Google Scholar
Hieu, H. K. & Ha, N. N. (2013). AIP Adv. 3, 112–125. CrossRef Google Scholar
Hirose, K., Sata, N., Komabayashi, T. & Ohishi, Y. (2008). Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 167, 149–154. CrossRef Google Scholar
Hultgren, R., Orr, R. L., Anderson, P. D. & Kelley, K. K. (1973). Selected Values of Thermodynamic Properties of Metals and Alloys. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
Hunt, S. A., Wann, E., Dobson, D., Vočadlo, L. & Wood, I. G. (2017). J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 29, 335701. CrossRef Google Scholar
Jamieson, J. C., Fritz, J. N. & Manghnani, M. H. (1982). High Pressure Res. Geophys. 140, 27–47. CrossRef Google Scholar
Kraftmakher, Y. (1998). Phys. Rep. 299, 79–188. CrossRef Google Scholar
Kraftmakher, Y. A. & Strelkov, P. G. (1966). Sov. Phys. Solid State, 8, 460–462. Google Scholar
Larson, A. C. & Von Dreele, R. B. (2000). General Structure Analysis System (GSAS). Report LAUR 86748. Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, USA. Google Scholar
Lawson, A. W. (1950). Phys. Rev. 78, 185. CrossRef Google Scholar
Li, Y., Vočadlo, L., Brodholt, J. & Wood, I. G. (2016). J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 121, 5828–5837. CrossRef Google Scholar
LindsayScott, A., Wood, I. G. & Dobson, D. P. (2007). Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 162, 140–148. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Mair, G., Hamacher, K. & Wenzl, H. (1976). Z. Phys. B, 24, 301–305. CrossRef Google Scholar
Martorell, B., Brodholt, J., Wood, I. G. & Vočadlo, L. (2013). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 365, 143–151. CrossRef Google Scholar
Martorell, B., Vočadlo, L., Brodholt, J. & Wood, I. G. (2013). Science, 342, 466–468. CrossRef Google Scholar
McDonough, W. F. & Sun, S. (1995). Chem. Geol. 120, 223–253. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Merriam, M. F., Smoluchowski, R. & Wiegand, D. A. (1962). Phys. Rev. 125, 65–67. CrossRef Google Scholar
Nadal, M.H. & Le Poac, P. (2003). J. Appl. Phys. 93, 2472–2480. CrossRef Google Scholar
Neighbours, J. R. & Alers, G. A. (1958). Phys. Rev. 111, 707–712. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Pervakov, V. A. & Khotkevich, V. I. (1960). Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 134, 1328–1330. Google Scholar
Poirier, J.P. (2000). Introduction to the Physics of the Earth's Interior. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. & Grimvall, G. (1984). J. Phys. F Met. Phys. 14, 931–939. CrossRef Google Scholar
Safonova, E. V., Konchakov, R. A., Mitrofanov, Y. P., Kobelev, N. P., Vinogradov, A. Y. & Khonik, V. A. (2016). JETP Lett. 103, 765–768. CrossRef Google Scholar
Secco, R. A. & Schloessin, H. H. (1989). J. Geophys. Res. 94, 5887–5894. CrossRef Google Scholar
Seeger, A. (1973). J. Phys. F Met. Phys. 3, 248–294. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Shim, S. H., Duffy, T. S. & Takemura, K. (2002). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 203, 729–739. CrossRef Google Scholar
Siegel, R. W. (1966a). Philos. Mag. 13, 337–358. CrossRef Google Scholar
Siegel, R. W. (1966b). Philos. Mag. 13, 359–366. CrossRef Google Scholar
Siegel, R. W. (1978). J. Nucl. Mater. 69–70, 117–146. CrossRef Google Scholar
Simmons, R. O. & Balluffi, R. W. (1962). Phys. Rev. 125, 862–872. CrossRef Google Scholar
Sola, E. & Alfè, D. (2009). Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 078501. CrossRef Google Scholar
Toby, B. H. (2001). J. Appl. Cryst. 34, 210–213. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Touloukian, Y. S., Kirby, R. K., Taylor, R. E. & Desai, P. D. (1975). Thermal Expansion, Thermophysical Properties of Matter, Vol. 12, pp. 1442. New York: Plenum. Google Scholar
Trots, D. M., Kurnosov, A., Ballaran, T. B. & Frost, D. J. (2012). Am. Mineral. 97, 1582–1590. CrossRef Google Scholar
Tsuchiya, T. (2003). J. Geophys. Res. 108, 1–9. CrossRef Google Scholar
Vočadlo, L. (2007). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 254, 227–232. Google Scholar
Vočadlo, L., Dobson, D. P. & Wood, I. G. (2009). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 288, 534–538. Google Scholar
Vočadlo, L., Knight, K. S., Price, G. D. & Wood, I. G. (2002). Phys. Chem. Miner. 29, 132–139. Google Scholar
Wallace, D. C. (1998). Thermodynamics of Crystals. New York: Dover. Google Scholar
Wang, K. & Reeber, R. (1994). Phys. Status Solidi (A), 146, 621–627. CrossRef Google Scholar
Wang, K. & Reeber, R. (1998). Mater. Sci. Eng. Rep. 23, 101–137. CrossRef Google Scholar
Wang, K. & Reeber, R. (2000). Philos. Mag. A, 80, 1629–1643. CrossRef Google Scholar
Wollenberger, H. J. (1996). Physical Metallugy, 4th ed., edited by R. W. Cahn & P. Haasen. Amsterdam: North Holland. Google Scholar
Wood, I. G., Fortes, A. D., Dobson, D. P., Wang, W., Pajdzik, L. & Cosier, J. (2018). J. Appl. Cryst. 51, https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576718003965. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Wood, I. G., Vocadlo, L., Knight, K. S., Dobson, D. P., Marshall, W. G., Price, G. D. & Brodholt, J. (2004). J. Appl. Cryst. 37, 82–90. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Yokoo, M., Kawai, N., Nakamura, K. G., Kondo, K. I., Tange, Y. & Tsuchiya, T. (2009). Phys. Rev. B, 80, 104114. CrossRef Google Scholar
Yoshihara, M., McLellan, R. B. & Brotzen, F. R. (1987). Acta Metall. 35, 775–780. CrossRef Google Scholar
This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CCBY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.