Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSkomurski, F.
dc.contributor.authorEwing, R.
dc.contributor.authorRohl, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorGale, Julian
dc.contributor.authorBecker, U.
dc.identifier.citationSkomurski, Frances and Ewing, Rodney and Rohl, Andrew and Gale, Julian and Becker, Udo. 2006. Quantum mechanical vs. empirical potential modeling of uranium dioxide (UO2) surfaces: (111), (110), and (100). American Mineralogist 91: 1761-1772.

To evaluate the stability, potential reactivity, and relaxation mechanisms on different uraninite surfaces, surface energy values were calculated and structural relaxation was determined for the (111), (110), and (100) crystallographic faces of uranium dioxide (UO2) using quantum mechanical (density functional theory) and empirical potential computational methods. Quantum mechanical results are compared with empirical potential results, which use surface slab models with two different geometries, as well as various different empirical force fields. The strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches are evaluated, and surface stabilizing mechanisms such as relaxation, charge redistribution, and electronic stabilization are investigated. Quantum mechanical (q.m.) surface energy results are in agreement with the relative surface energy trends resulting from calculations using three different empirical potential sets for uranium and oxygen (two from Catlow 1977; one from Meis and Gale 1998), and with empirical force-field values published in the literature (Abramowski et al. 1999, 2001). The (111) surface consistently has the lowest surface energy (0.461 J/m2 from q.m. calculations) and the smallest amount of surface relaxation, followed by the (110) surface (0.846 J/m2; q.m.), and the (100) surface (1.194 J/m2; q.m.) (quantum mechanical surface energy values in parentheses are for surface slabs with a thickness of four UO2 units). Differences exist, however, in the absolute values of surface energies calculated as a function of potential set used. Quantum mechanical values are consistently lower than values calculated using empirical potential methods. A fourth potential set is presented that is derived from fitting electrostatic and short-range repulsive parameters to experimental bulk properties and surface energies and relaxations from quantum mechanical calculations.

dc.publisherMineralogical Society of America
dc.subjectquantum mechanical
dc.subjectempirical potentials
dc.subjectsurface energy
dc.subject- uranium dioxide
dc.subjectforce ? elds
dc.titleQuantum mechanical vs. empirical potential modeling of uranium dioxide (UO2) surfaces: (111), (110), and (100)
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.titleAmerican Mineralogist

Copyright 2006 Mineralogical Society of America. All rights reserved.

curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available
curtin.facultyDepartment of Applied Chemistry
curtin.facultyDivision of Engineering, Science and Computing
curtin.facultyFaculty of Science

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record