Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions - Группа авторов страница 57

Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions - Группа авторов

Скачать книгу

3.4 Energy diagrams for multi‐electron states that arise from the 3d electron configurations d5 (Fe3+) (a) and d6 (Fe2+) (b) in the limit of strong octahedral crystal fields. Note the change in electronic ground state for each electron configuration when the ratio Δ/B reaches the value marked by a vertical line. The distributions of d electrons over the crystal‐field orbitals t2 and e are illustrated for the three states that have the lowest energies at the change in electronic ground state.

equation

      where Δϕ = ϕ(V, T) − ϕ0(V0, T0) are the changes in the fractions ϕ of d electrons that occupy each electronic state at a given volume and temperature with respect to the fractions ϕ0 at ambient conditions. Note that the configurational entropy term is multiplied by the number d of d electrons per transition metal cation. The fraction of d electrons that occupy a given state can be found by applying the equilibrium condition (∂FEL/∂ni)V,T,N = 0 to a micro‐canonical ensemble with the absolute numbers ni = ϕiN of electrons in each state and the total number N of electrons (Sturhahn et al., 2005):

equation

      The denominator sums over all multi‐electron states being considered.

      The excess contributions to pressure and bulk modulus then follow from the definitions:

equation

      and

equation

      All excess quantities need to be multiplied by the number and fraction of crystallographic sites that are occupied by the transition metal cation.

      The parametrization of spin transitions presented above builds on the formulation proposed by Sturhahn et al. (2005) and resembles earlier attempts to predict the effect of spin transitions in Fe2+ on thermodynamic properties of mantle minerals (Badro et al., 2005; Gaffney, 1972; Gaffney & Anderson, 1973; Ohnishi, 1978). Unlike these forward modeling approaches, I will use the formulation here in a semi‐empirical way with adjustable parameters that will be constrained by experimental observations. In contrast to formulations based on the Gibbs free energy with pressure as variable and elastic compliances as parameters that have proven useful in describing the results of DFT computations (Shukla et al., 2016; Wentzcovitch et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2013), a formulation of excess contributions in terms of volume and temperature is more consistent with finite‐strain theory based on the assumption of homogeneous and isotropic finite strain and can, in principle, be generalized to evaluate the effect on individual components of the elastic stiffness tensor and hence on the shear modulus. The impact of spin transitions on the shear modulus, however, appears to be minor (Fu et al., 2018; Marquardt et al., 2009b; Shukla et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2013). Note that by accounting for changes in the electronic configurations in terms of excess properties it is no longer necessary to derive sets of finite‐strain parameters for each individual electronic configuration as required by earlier formulations based on high‐spin and low‐spin states only (Chen et al., 2012; Speziale et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2013, 2009), since the excess contributions are simply added to the (cold) elastic and thermal contributions. Although I assume here that transition metal cations with different electronic configurations mix ideally among each other and with other cations, it is in principle possible to add further terms to account for nonideal mixing behavior and interactions between transition metal cations (Holmström and Stixrude, 2015; Ohnishi and Sugano, 1981; Sturhahn et al., 2005). To some extent and for low concentrations of transition metal cations, deviations from ideal mixing will be captured by the semi‐empirical parameters when fit to experimental data.

Скачать книгу