Evaluation of Defect-Defect Pair Interactions in Nonstoichiometric Oxides by Cvm and Monte Carlo Calculations

  • R. Tétot
  • B. Nacer
  • C. Giaconia
  • G. Boureau
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 319)


A distinctive feature of oxides, in comparison with other nonstoichiometric compounds (including metallic alloys), is that ?G(O2) and ?H(O2), the relative partial molar free energy and enthalpy of oxygen, are measurable as a function of both temperature, T, and departure from stoichiometry, x, for a great number of systems1. ?G(O2) and ?H(O2) are respectively the variations of the free energy and the enthalpy during the dissolving of one oxygen mole in an infinite amount of oxide at constant T. As a consequence of the interactions between nonstoichiometry defects, these functions are generally heavily composition dependent. By means of statistical methods, the defect-defect pair interactions (DDPIs) may be related to ?G(O2) and ?H(O2). This allows us either to evaluate the DDPIs by an inverse approach, or to check defect models proposed in the litterature. In view of the shape of ??(O2)(x) for small x, e.g. for small concentrations of defects, two limiting cases may be distinguished: - metallic oxides: ?H(O2) is constant in a certain range of x, as in solid solutions of oxygen in transition metals (see refs in ref 1). This behaviour implies that the DDPIs are relatively short ranged. In this case, both Monte Carlo simulations and the CVM (cluster variation method) appear to be appropriate to deal with defect statistic.


Monte Carlo Simulation Ising Model Cluster Variation Method Inverse Approach Molar Free Energy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Tétot, C. Picard, G. Boureau and P. Gerdanian, Adv. Cer. 32:455 (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Tétot, M. Benzakour and G. Boureau, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 51:6, 545 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Boureau and R. Tétot, Phys. Rev. B40:2304 (1989)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Tétot, C. Giaconia, A. Finel and G. Boureau, to be publishedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D de Fontaine, L.T. Wille and S.C. Moss, Phys. Rev.B 36:5709 (1987)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Kikuchi and J.S. Choi, Physica C160:347 (1989)ADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    PA. Sterne and L.T. Wille, Physica C, 162:223 (1989)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Gerdanian, C. Picard and J.F. Marucco, Physica C157:180 (1989)ADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Nowotny and M. Rekas, J.Am.Ceram.Soc 72:1199 and 1267 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    U. Hölsher and H. Schmalzried, Z. Phys. Chem. Neue Folge, 129:69 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Picard and P. Gerdanian, J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 50:383 (1989)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Tétot
    • 1
  • B. Nacer
    • 1
  • C. Giaconia
    • 1
  • G. Boureau
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire des composés Non-Stoechiométriques Bât 415Université de Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Chimie PhysiqueUniversité Pierre et Marie Curie 11Paris Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations