5
$\begingroup$

I am following this paper to calculate the formation enthalpy of MgCu$_2$, in which the formation enthalpy is defined as follows:

enter image description here

where $E$(Mg$_x$X$_y$) is the total energy of the compound, and $E$(Mg) and $E$(X) are the total energies of pure elements in their stable structures. Since the influence of pressure on the condensed phases is ignored and the energies are calculated at $0$ K without any entropic contributions, the energy of formation is taken to be the enthalpy of formation.

Based on this, I calculated the formation enthalpy of MgCu$_2$. The calculation flow is shown below:

  • The ground state energy for the conventional cell of bulk MgCu$_2$ with Fd$\bar{3}$m space group:

    $E$(MgCu2)=-.75231981E+02 (eV)

  • The ground state energy for the conventional cell of bulk Mg with P6$_3$/mmc space group:

    $E$(Mg)=-.30124735E+01 (eV)

  • The ground state energy for the conventional cell of bulk Cu with Fm$_3$m space group:

    $E$(Cu)=-.14921761E+02 (eV)

Then the enthalpy of formation is estimated as:

$\Delta E_f$=$E$(MgCu2) - $\dfrac{1}{3}$ $E$(Mg) - $\dfrac{2}{3}$ $E$ (Cu) = -64.2799825 (eV)

In the reference paper, the unit kJ/mol is utilized. Due to 1eV=96 kJ/mol, then the enthalpy of formation in kJ/mol is:

$\Delta E_f$ = -64.2799825 (eV) = -6170.87832 (kJ/mol)

which is very different from the result of the reference paper: enter image description here

What I am missing?

PS: the lattice constants for all structures are kept the same and all results are also calculated by VASP package with consistent parameters.

$\endgroup$
1
5
$\begingroup$

I haven't been able to resolve everything, but here are some thoughts.

First, the form of Equation (1) assumes the energies are given on a per atom basis.

Second, try comparing the Materials Project energies against your energies. For example, with 24-, 2-, and 4-atom cells for MgCu2, Mg, and Cu, respectively:

  • MgCu2:  -3.3975 vs. -3.1347 [= -75.231981 / 24] eV/atom;
  • Mg:        -1.5908 vs. -1.5062 [= -3.0124735 / 2] eV/atom;
  • Cu:        -4.0992 vs. -3.7304 [= -14.921761 / 4] eV/atom.

All three agree reasonably well.

Finally, note that inserting the Materials Project energies into Equation (1) yields -0.134 eV/atom, matching the Materials Project formation energy given for MgCu2. Doing the same for your energies yields -0.146 eV/atom. However, these values convert to -12.9 kJ/mol-atoms and -14.0 kJ/mol-atoms, respectively, which makes me a little skeptical of the -4.75 kJ/mol-atoms given in the paper.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ For MgCu2, a conventional cell with 24 atoms has been utilized. My results are also consistent with the Materials Project. $\endgroup$ – Jack Feb 2 at 23:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, updated my answer using that info. $\endgroup$ – wcw Feb 3 at 11:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.