You are on page 1of 6

Eur. Phys. J.

B (2012) 85: 193


DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2012-20908-6

THE EUROPEAN
PHYSICAL JOURNAL B

Regular Article

Analytic equation of state and thermodynamic properties


for solid FCC C60 over a wide range of pressures
and temperatures
W. Yang1,a , H. Cheng1 , J.X. Sun2 , H. Liu1 , K. Yang3 , and Y.L. Zheng1
1
2
3

School of Electronic information Engineering, University of Chengdu, Chengdu, Sichuan 610106, P.R. China
Department of Applied Physics, University of Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan 610054, P.R. China
Department of Physics, A ba Teachers College, Chengdu, Sichuan 611741, P.R. China
Received 7 November 2011 / Received in nal form 13 April 2012
c EDP Sciences, Societ`
Published online 12 June 2012 
a Italiana di Fisica, Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract. As an analytic approximation to the free volume theory (FVT), the analytic mean eld potential
(AMFP) approach is applied to the multi-exponential model solid. The analytic expressions for the equation
of state (EOS) and thermodynamic quantities are derived. The formalism for the case of the doubleexponential (DE) model is applied to the solid fcc C60 . The four potential parameters are determined by
tting the experimental data of cohesive energy, lattice constant and compression curve of solid C60 . The
numerical results calculated show that the Girifalco potential is too hard and gives compression curve
prominently deviated from experiments at high pressure, whereas the DE potential can well describe the
thermo-physical properties of C60 system within wide pressure range. The calculated variation of lattice
constant versus temperature relationship and compression curve for solid C60 by using the DE potential
agree well with experimental data available. Especially the AMFP with DE potential predicted that the
fcc C60 solid is stable up to 2440 K, the spinodal temperature, in good agreement with the result from
molecular dynamic (MD) simulation. The AMFP is a useful approach to consider the anharmonic eects
at high temperature for solid C60 .

1 Introduction
In the past two decades, the structure and properties of
fullerenes have been intensively studied in experimental
and theoretical aspects. As far as the research of thermodynamic properties of fullerites is concerned, the Girifalco
potential [1] has been extensively applied. The properties of fullerenes uid phase have been extensively researched by using computer simulations and model equations of state, respectively. However, for the solid state,
the vast majority of experimental and theoretical work
on pure and doped solid fullerenes (fullerites and fullerides) deals with their magnetic properties and superconductivity [26]. Up to now, just a few works have been
reported for thermodynamic properties [712]. For example, Cheng et al. [7] predicted the phase diagram by using an integral equation approach combined with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations based on the Girifalco
potential. Abramo group published MD simulation results [8,9]. As for model equations of state, we just found
two works. Girifalco rstly researched thermodynamic
properties of fcc C60 under harmonic Debye-Gr
uneisen
(DG) theory [10]. Zubov et al. [11,12] pointed out that
a

e-mail: yangweiuestc@yahoo.cn

the anharmonicity of the lattice vibrations of the C60 fullerite is strong at T > 700 K. As this temperature is
reached, the main anharmonic terms are no longer small
corrections and must be included. Zubov et al. [11,12]
considered anharmonic modication up to fourth order
by using their unsymmetrized self-consistent eld (CUSF)
approach. Whereas, Shukla et al. [13,14] have shown that
the anharmonic expansion is divergent at high temperature. Although Zubov et al. [11,12] improved the convergence of the CUSF approach by using a self-consistent
procedure and including anharmonic modication up to
fourth order, this may not is enough at higher temperature. For example, the MD simulations [7] by using the
Girifalco potential show that solid fcc C60 is stable up
to about 2300 K. However, the CUSF predicted the stable temperature just is 1916 K. Thus, it is necessary to
use other approaches that can include anharmonic eect
soundly to study the system.
It is well known that Wang et al. [1518] proposed
the analytic mean eld potential (AMFP) method, and
they applied it to many materials. Bhatt et al. [19,20]
further applied the AMFP method to lead and alkali metals, and concluded that in comparison with other theoretical models the AMFP method is computationally simple, physically transparent and reliable in the study of the

Page 2 of 6

Eur. Phys. J. B (2012) 85: 193

thermodynamic properties at high pressures and high temperatures. Recently, Sun et al. [21] proved that the AMFP
method is an analytic approximation of the free volume
theory (FVT). The FVT is a mean eld approximation
to the thermal contribution of atoms to the Helmholtz
energy of crystalline phases. Many authors [2124] have
shown that the FVT can soundly include anharmonic
terms which are important at high temperatures. It is
more valuable to directly use the strict FVT than the
approximate AMFP, in the cases that the analytic equation of state (EOS) can be derived based on the strict
FVT. Nevertheless, in some cases the mean eld integral
and the EOS for the strict FVT are fairly complicated or
cannot be analytically derived. Then it is convenient to
develop simple analytic EOS through the AMFP, whereas
the complete FVT fails. We applied the AMFP method
to solid C60 by the aid of the Girifalco potential. The numerical results agree well with the MD simulations and
are superior to the CUSF of Zubov et al. [11,12]. This
veries that the AMFP method is a convenient approach
to consider the anharmonic eect at high temperatures.
However, the computer simulations have shown that
the Girifalco potential is too hard [9] for describing the
solid-state behavior even at moderate high pressures and
thus leads to serious discrepancies when compared to the
atomistic simulation results, resulting in a poor reproduction of the EOS of real life C60 . Ben-Amotz et al. [25] once
pointed out that in order to describe the thermodynamic
properties of a material in a wide density range by using a
model potential, it is necessary to determine the potential
parameters from experimental data, in particular in the
high-density state. For example, since the parameters in
original Girifalco potential [1,10] were determined mainly
from the experimental data of graphite at low pressure, it
is not surprising that it fails in describing the properties
of fcc C60 at high pressure. For this reason, we think it is
worth seeking other potential which being softer than the
Girifalco potential to study the C60 system. Considering
that the exponential potential [26] can describe properties
of most materials at high pressure, we utilize the following
double-exponential (DE) potential (or generalized Morse
potential) to replace the Girifalco potential.
(s) = 0

m


Aj ej (1s) ,

s = r/r0

(1)

j=1

where r is the radial coordinate, r0 is the equilibrium distance and 0 the well depth. For the DE potential we have
m = 2, and

A1 = 2 /(1 2 )
(2)
A2 = 1 /(1 2 ) .
The two parameters 1 and 2 describe the decay of the
potential versus the radial coordinate r. Then the expression of potential energy (s) involves both a repulsive term
(j = 1) and an attractive term (j = 2). Our calculations
show that the DE potential with m = 2 can describe the
thermodynamic properties of solid fcc C60 well enough,

even at high-temperatures and pressures. Therefore, it is


not necessary to take more terms.
As was pointed out by Girifalco [10] and Zubov
et al. [11,12], in C60 molecule, the atoms are held together by strong chemical bonds while the interactions
among these molecules in the fcc solid arise from van der
Waals-type forces and are much weaker. To a good approximation therefore, the thermal properties of fcc C60
can be treated as the sum of those resulting from intermolecular vibrations and those arising from intramolecular vibrations. The intramolecular vibrations have no effect on the EOS and related properties but are crucial
in specic heats [11,12]. Hence, there is no necessity to
take it into account in the EOS and the related properties. The spatial motions of C60 molecule provide the
dominant contributions to the EOS. In this work, we just
concern the intermolecular contributions, as having been
done by Girifalco [10] and Zubov et al. [11,12]. In Section 2
we derive analytic EOS based on the AMFP approach. In
Section 3 the parameters of the DE potential are determined by tting experimental data of solid C60 . And the
numerical results are presented and analyzed. Section 4
contains our nal remarks.

2 Analytic equation of state


In terms of the FVT, the free energy can be expressed
as [2124]
  u(0)
F
3 
= ln 2kT h2 +
ln vf ,
N kT
2
2kT

(3)

where is the mass of the C60 molecule and h Plancks


constant. u(0) is the potential energy of a molecule, as the
lattice is static, vf is the free volume. The quantity u(0)
can be expressed as follows:
 
  


a
Ri
=
=
zi
z i i
zi (i y),
u(0) =
r0
r0
i=0

i=0

i=0

(4)
where Ri = i a is the distance of molecules in the ith shell
with the centre molecule at i = 0. a is the nearest-neighbor
distance. zi and i are structural constants (the values
for the fcc structure have been given in reference [27],
The quantity y is the reduced volume, it is dened in
equation (9). The quantity vf can be expressed as follows:
rm
vf = 4
exp [g (r, V )/kT ] r2 dr.
(5)
0

According to the AMFP method [1518] and the cell theory, the largest displacement rm of the centre molecule
can be approximately taken as the Wigner-Seitz radius
(3a3 /4)1/3 . Then we have rm = (3a3 /4)1/3 in equation (5). Where
is a structure constant; for the fcc struc
ture it is 2. g(r, V ) is the potential energy of a molecule
as it roams from the centre to a distance r. In terms of
the AMFP approach [1518], g(r, V ) can be expressed by

Eur. Phys. J. B (2012) 85: 193

Page 3 of 6

the static energy Ec (a) of a molecule:

The compressibility factor Z and internal energy U can


be derived as

r
1

1+
Ec (a + r)
2
a


r
Ec (a r) 2Ec (a) ,
+ 1
a
1
1
Ec (a) = u (0) =
zi (i y).
2
2

g(r, V ) =

(6)
(7)

i=0

vf = 4a3 vf = 4 (V /N ) vf ,

x = r/a,

xm =

(8)

V0 = N (r0 )3 /,

rm
1/3
= (3/4) .
a

(9)
(10)

The reduced free volume vf and its derivatives with respect to temperature and reduced volume can be expressed as

vf =

xm

exp [g (x, y)/kT ]x2 dx,

(11)

vf
T
xm
1
=
exp [g (x, y)/kT ] g (x, y) x2 dx,
kT 0

vf a = T

(12)

vf
y
xm
1

g (x, y) x2 dx. (13)


=
exp [g (x, y)/kT ]
kT 0
y

vf b =

Here g(x, y) g(r, V ), combining (4), (7), (9), (10), we


have
g (x, y) g (r, V )

1
zi [(1 + x) (i y + i yx)
4
i=0

+ (1 x) (i y i yx) 2 (i y)] ,

(17)
(18)
(19)

i=0

The volume of a fcc solid is V = N a3 /, (N is the quantity


of cell for a solid fcc C60 ). For simplicity, we introduce the
dimensionless reduced free volume vf , the reduced volume
y, and the reduced radial coordinate x as follows:

y = a/r0 = (V /V0 )1/3 ,

y F
Pc V
Pf V
PV
=
=
+
,
N kT
3 y N kT
N kT
N kT
Pc V
y
=
u (0) ,
N kT
6kT y


u (0) =
zi i  (i y),
y

Z=

(14)

1

2
g (x, y)
zi i (1 + x)  (i y + i yx)
y
4

y
Pf V
=1+
vf ,
N kT
3
vf y
vf
U
F
3 u (0)
T
= T
= +
+
N kT
T N kT
2
2kT
vf T
3 u (0) vf a
+
,
= +
2
2kT
vf

(20)

(21)

where Pc is the cold pressure and Pf the thermal pressure


deduced from free volume.
By using the above equations, all other thermodynamic quantities can be analytically derived. The derivations are straightforward. However, the expressions for the
thermal expansion coecient , compressibility coecient
and isochoric heat capacity CV are redundant; we would
calculate these quantities by using numerical dierentiation instead of the analytic expressions. The compressibility factor Z can be seen as a function of the variables y and
T , Z = Z(y, T ). In terms of the function, the formulas for
the thermal expansion coecient , compressibility coefcient and isochoric heat capacity CV can be reduced
to the following form:




3 y
1 V
=
=
V T P
y T P


 
y  Z  1
Z
Z
+
Z
=
,
(22)
T
T y
3
y T






3 y
Vd y 3
1 V
=
=
=
V P T
y P T
N kT

y  Z  1
,
(23)
Z
3
y T




CV
1
U

U
U
=
+T
=
. (24)
Nk
N k T V
N kT
T N kT y
In our calculations, it is found that following the steps of
the numerical dierentiations in equations (22)(24) can
reach stable numerical results, T = 0.00001 T and
y = 0.00001 y.

i=0


+ (1 x)2  (i y i yx) 2 (i y) , (15)
 (s) = 0

m

j=1

j Aj ej (1s) .

(16)

3 Results and discussion


In this section we apply above formalism to the solid fcc
C60 . We determined one set of parameters for the DE
potential in equation (1) by tting following experimental data, the cohesive energy 175 kJ/mol at 0 K [11,12],

Page 4 of 6

Eur. Phys. J. B (2012) 85: 193

Table 1. Properties of the fcc phase of C60 : the nearest-neighbor distance a in nm, linear thermal expansion coecient in
105 K1 , the bulk modulus BT in kbar, the heat capacity CV in kJ mol1 K1 . The values in the rst and second lines have
been calculated with the AMFP combining the Girifalco potential (G) and Double-exponential (D) potential, respectively.
T
a

BT
CV

261.4
1.0068
0.9992
1.102
1.445
139.67
73.62
24.16
24.27

G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D

400
1.0084
1.0012
1.167
1.523
127.57
67.78
23.76
23.92

600
1.0108
1.0044
1.278
1.653
110.89
59.71
23.19
23.42

800
1.0136
1.0079
1.417
1.810
95.06
52.01
22.62
22.92

1000
1.0166
1.0117
1.595
2.004
80.01
44.69
22.04
22.42

1200
1.0201
1.0160
1.831
2.251
65.72
37.72
21.44
21.89

4000
3000
Line with circles: Girifalco potential
2000
Line with squares: DE potential

(r) (K)

1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
0.9

1.1

1.2
r (nm)

1.3

1.4

1.5

Fig. 1. (Color online) Comparison of Girifalco potential (line


with circles) with the DE potential (line with squares) proposed in this work.

lattice constant 1.417 nm at 300 K, as well as the compression data at 300 K [2830]. The determined values of
parameters are as follows
1 = 6,

2 = 30,

r0 = 1.0 nm,

0 = 3219 K. (25)

We compare the DE potential with the Girifalco potential [1] for C60 molecules in Figure 1. The gure shows
that the dierence of well depth and equilibrium distance
between the two potentials is fairly small; the curve of
DE potential is more atter, and the repulsion is softer
than that of the Girifalco potential. Considering that the
Girifalco potential has been shown too hard at high pressure [9], at the same time, we hold that the DE potential
is available for describing the solid state behavior even at
moderate high pressures and can give the reproduction of
the EOS of real-life C60 .
The thermodynamic properties calculated at zero pressure and dierent temperatures by using the DE potential
are listed in Table 1. The results of the corresponding thermodynamic quantities from Girifalco potential are also
presented in the table for comparison. The spinodal point
Ts is the temperature satisfying the condition, BT (Ts ) =
0 [11,12]. The system is unstable for temperature above
Ts . For the Girifalco potential, the results correspond to
three case, MD simulations performed by Cheng group [7]
and Abramo group [8] give Ts = 2320 K, the CUSF approach used by Zubov et al. [11] gives Ts = 1916 K, our

1400
1.0241
1.0209
2.161
2.576
52.13
31.09
20.81
21.35

1600
1.0290
1.0266
2.665
3.024
39.20
24.81
20.12
20.77

1800
1.0354
1.0335
3.547
3.691
26.86
18.85
19.35
20.14

2000
1.0445
1.0422
5.638
4.811
14.89
13.19
18.39
19.43

2200
1.0692
1.0544
61.84
7.228
9.97
7.769
16.54
18.57

2440
1.0957
175.46
0.221
16.52

AMFP calculation gives Ts = 2202 K; For the DE potential, our AMFP calculation gives Ts = 2440 K. The value
of Ts given by CUSF approach is lower than MD result
by about 20%. The reason is maybe that the CUSF approach does not consider the aharmonic eect perfectly.
Although it has been claimed that the anharmonic terms
are taken up to fourth order, it is not really valid at
high temperature. In this circumstance, Zubov et al. [11]
merely computed the thermodynamic properties up to
1900 K. However, the values of Ts calculated with the
AMFP combining the Girifalco potential and DE potential, respectively, are in good agreement with MD simulations results. The error is only 5% between ours and
MD simulations results. It implies that our calculations
could be performed up to 2200 K. The results presented
above proved that AMFP approach is reliable method for
fullerene systems and can well represent the anharmonic
eect well at high temperatures. At the same time, we noticed that the Ts of C70 and C84 is 2635 K and 2807 K,
respectively [31,32]. Thus we can obtain the following sequence, Ts (C84 ) > Ts (C70 ) > Ts (C60 ). This means that
the fullerene solids can keep stable at higher temperature
for fullerene with heavier molecules. To check if this rule
is also suitable to extend to larger fullerene molecules, further investigations are necessary to be carried out. Additionally, Table 1 shows that the thermal expansion coecient and the nearest-neighbor distance are the increasing
functions of temperature, whereas the bulk modulus and
the isochoric heat capacity are decreasing function of temperature. And the thermal expansion coecient becomes
divergent and the bulk modulus tends zero near the spinodal temperature.
Figures 26 present the AMFP results of thermodynamic properties of solid fcc C60 calculated by using the
DE potential. For Figures 2 and 3, the available experimental data and the results from the Girifalco potential
have been presented for comparison. Figure 2 shows that
the agreement of the calculated variation of lattice constant versus temperature with experiments [2] is fairly
bad for the case of the Girifalco potential, and satisfactory for the case of the DE potential. Figure 3 shows
that the compression curve for the Girifalco potential is
too hard as compared with experiments [28,29], as having been shown by reference [9], and the DE potential
gives much soft and improved compression curve, when

Eur. Phys. J. B (2012) 85: 193

Page 5 of 6
280

1.48

Circles: Experimental data [2]

1.47

Upper line: AMFP with Girifalco potential

1.46

Lower line: AMFP with DE potential

210

Fex /NkT

L (nm)

1.49

1.45
1.44

140

= 2.0 nm-3

70
1.8 nm-3

1.43

1.6 nm

-3

1.4 nm-3

1.42
1.41
200

600

1000

1400

1800

-70
300

2200

1000

Fig. 2. (Color online) Comparison of lattice spacing L(= 2a)


versus temperature relationship at zero pressure: upper line,
AMFP results for Girifalco potential; lower line, AMFP results
for the DE potential; Circles, experimental data [2].

1700

2400

T (K)

T (K)

Fig. 5. (Color online) Excess free energy as function of temperature calculated for several densities calculated by using
the AMFP and the DE potential. The symbols represent results for = 2.0 nm3 (squares), 1.8 nm3 (down triangles),
1.6 nm3 (circles), and 1.4 nm3 (up triangles), respectively.
The lines are guidance to the eyes.

250

280
1

200

140

= 2.0 nm-3

U/NkT

P (kbar)

210
150

100

70
50

1.8 nm-3
0

0
1.4

1.4 nm-3
1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.1

(nm-3)

Fig. 3. (Color online) Comparison of isothermals of solid C60


calculated by using Girifalco potential (upper line labeled 1),
and the DE potential (lower line labeled 2) with experiments
at 300 K. The symbols refer to experimental data, by Horikawa
et al. in reference [28] (squares), and by Duclos et al. in reference [29] at 200 kbar (circles), 100 kbar (up triangles), and
40 kbar (down triangles), respectively.

3500
3000

AMFP with Girifalco potential


AMFP with DE potential

2500

Experimental data [30]


Experimental data [28]

B (kbar)

Experimental data [29]


2000
1500
1000
500
0

1.6 nm

-3

50

100
P (kbar)

150

200

Fig. 4. (Color online) Variation of the isothermal bulk modulus BT versus pressure P calculated in this work at 300 K, and
by using the Girifalco potential (dashed line) and the DE potential (solid line), respectively. The experimental results taken
from Horikawa et al. [28] (cross marks), Duclos et al. [29] (up
triangles), Lundin et al. [30] (open circles).

-70
300

1000

1700

2400

T (K)

Fig. 6. (Color online) The same as for Figure 5, but for internal
energy.

compared with experiments [28,29]. Therefore, the DE potential can give better results than the Girifalco potential
for C60 system even at moderate high pressures and can
give the reproduction of the real behavior of C60 . While
in Figure 3 the density-pressure curve shows discrepancy
with the experimental results, especially above 57 GPa.
This can be understood by the fact that in experiment
part of C60 s may start to polymerize, i.e., form random
covalent bonding with its neighbors above 57 GPa, and
thus lose their molecular character. This is dierent from
the theoretic model in this work, as in the theoretic model
the C60 is always supposed to keep molecular character in
a fcc structure, and no phase transition or polymerization
was considered. So the discrepancy between the theory
and the experiment is reasonably expected. Especially, at
higher pressure, the discrepancy is larger, because the covalent bonding is more serious and the deformation or even
amorphization of C60 s possibly appear. Such eect is more
obvious in the case of the comparison for bulk modulus
between the theoretic calculations and the experimental
data. While for C84 reported in reference [32], the pressure
VS density curve agrees well with the experimental results
even up to 10 GPa, because C84 doesnt polymerize below

Page 6 of 6

10 GPa and thus can keep its molecular feature during


the whole studied pressure range. Figure 4 gives the variation of isothermal bulk modulus BT versus pressure p of
solid fcc C60 at 300 K. In this gure, it is notable that the
experimental data for the pressure dependence of BT are
variant for dierent experiments [2830]. The gure shows
that BT almost is a linearly increasing function of pressure, but the slope is too large in the case of the Girifalco
potential as compared with the experimental results. The
dierence of BT is small at low pressure and increases at
high pressure. The value of BT from the DE potential at
high pressure is far smaller than that from the Girifalco
potential, and is qualitatively in agreement with the experimental results. This implies the DE potential for fcc
C60 is far softer than the Girifalco potential. Considering
the phase properties and physics-chemical properties are
sensitive to the potential form, evident dierence would
exist between the soft and hard potentials. And we think
that in order to describe physical properties of materials
with heavy molecular weight at high-pressure conditions,
the selection for potential of molecules is very important.
In Figures 5 and 6, the reduced excess free energy
Fex /N kT and reduced internal energy U/N kT versus
temperature relationships are plotted at four densities.
The reduced excess free energy is dened as follows

Fex
F
3 
=
+ ln 2 2 kT /h2 .
(26)
N kT
N kT
2
The two gures show that both Fex /N kT and U/N kT
are increasing functions of temperature at low densities,
and are decreasing functions of temperature at high densities. Both quantities have the convergence tendency at
high temperatures. U/N kT tends to a constant 3/2, yet
Fex /N kT does not tend to a constant but to a weakly
density dependent value.

4 Conclusions
In summary, the Helmholtz energy, internal energy and
EOS for the multiple-exponential model solid have been
analytically derived by using the AMFP approach. The
analytic method is applied to the solid fcc C60 . The parameters of DE potential for C60 molecules are determined
by tting the experimental data of cohesive energy, lattice
constant and compression curve of solid C60 at ambient
temperature. The dierence of equilibrium distance and
well depth for C60 molecules between the DE potential
and the Girifalco potential is small; but the repulsion of
the DE potential is softer than that of the Girifalco potential. The calculated compression curve and the variation
of lattice constant versus temperature for solid C60 agree
well with experimental data available. Moreover, the results presented in this paper verify that the AMFP is a
useful approach to consider the anharmonic eects at high
temperature.
This work was supported by the Fund of Key Project of
Chengdu University under Grant No. 2011XJZ07, by the Scientic Research Foundation of Sichuan Provincial Department

Eur. Phys. J. B (2012) 85: 193


of Education under Grant Nos. 11ZA298 and 10ZC059, by the
Fund of the Horizontal Subject No. 201102101.

References
1. L.A. Girifalco, J. Phys. Chem. 96, 858 (1992)
2. Y. Takabayashi, A.Y. Ganin, P. Jeglic, D. Arcon, T.
Takano, Y. Iwasa, Y. Ohishi, M. Takata, N. Takeshita,
K. Prassides, M.J. Rosseinsky, Science 323, 1585 (2009)
3. M.G. Yao, V. Pischedda, A.S. Miguel, J. Phys.: Condens.
Matter 23, 115701-7 (2011)
4. M.G. Yao, B. Sundqvist, T. W
agberg, Phys. Rev. B 79,
081403 (2009)
5. M.G. Yao, V. Pischedda, B. Sundqvist, T. W
agberg, M.
Mezouar, R. Debord, A.S. Miguel, Phys. Rev. B 84, 144106
(2011)
6. V. Buntar, Phys. Lett. A 184, 131 (1993)
7. A. Cheng, M.L. Klein, C. Caccamo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71,
1200 (1993)
8. M.C. Abramo, C. Caccamo, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 57,
1751 (1996)
9. M.C. Abramo, C. Caccamo, D. Costa, G. Pellicane, R.
Ruberto, Phys. Rev. E 69, 031112 (2004)
10. L.A. Girifalco, Phys. Rev. B 52, 9910 (1995)
11. V.I. Zubov, N.P. Tretiakov, J.F. Sanchez, A.A. Caparica,
Phys. Rev. B 53, 12080 (1996)
12. V.I. Zubov, J.F. Sanchez-Ortiz, N.P. Tretiakov, I.V.
Zubov, Phys. Rev. B 55, 6747 (1997)
13. R.C. Shukla, E.R. Cowley, Phys. Rev. B 31, 374 (1985)
14. D.J. Lacks, R.C. Shukla, Phys. Rev. B 54, 3266 (1996)
15. Y. Wang, D. Chen, X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3220
(2000)
16. Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 62, 196 (2000)
17. Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 63, 245108 (2001)
18. Y. Wang, R. Ahuja, B. Johansson, Phys. Rev. B 65, 014104
(2001)
19. N.K. Bhatt, A.R. Jani, P.R. Vyas, V.B. Gohel, Physica B
357, 259 (2005)
20. N.K. Bhatt, P.R. Vyas, A.R. Jani, V.B. Gohel, J. Phys.
Chem. Solids 66, 797 (2005)
21. J.X. Sun, L.C. Cai, Q. Wu, F.Q. Jing, Phys. Rev. B 71,
024107 (2005)
22. E.R. Cowley, J. Gross, Z.X. Gong, G.K. Horton, Phys.
Rev. B 42, 3135 (1990)
23. E. Wasserman, L. Stixrude, Phys. Rev. B 53, 8296 (1996)
24. W. Yang, J.X. Sun, F. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. B 71, 211 (2009)
25. D. Ben-Amotz, A.D. Gift, R.D. Levine, J. Chem. Phys.
117, 4632 (2002)
26. A.I. Karasevskii, W.B. Holzapfel, Phys. Rev. B 67, 224301
(2003)
27. N.X. Chen, Z.D. Chen, Y.C. Wei, Phys. Rev. E 55, R5
(1997)
28. T. Horikawa, T. Kinoshita, K. Suito, A. Onodera, Solid
State Commun. 114, 121 (2000)
29. S.J. Duclos, K. Brister, R.C. Haddon, A.R. Kortan, F.A.
Theil, Nature 351, 380 (1991)
30. A. Lundin, B. Sundqvist, P. Skoglund, A. Fransson, S.
Pettersson, Solid State Commun. 84, 879 (1992)
31. W. Yang, J.X. Sun, L.G. Wang, R.G. Tian, Mod. Phys.
Lett. B 22, 515 (2008)
32. W. Yang, J.X. Sun, F. Yu, Braz. J. Phys. 38, 564 (2008)