1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%% The following is a LaTeX file %%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article} %%%
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \textheight 237mm %%
7: \textwidth 160mm %%
8: \headheight 0mm %%
9: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0mm} %%
10: \topmargin -1cm %%
11: %\hbadness=5000 %%
12: %\vbadness=8000 %%
13: %\addtolength{\voffset}{-1in} %%
14: %\addtolength{\hoffset}{-0.3in} %%
15: %\addtolength{\textheight}{1in} %%
16: %\addtolength{\textwidth}{0.6in} %%
17: %\newfont{\ffont}{msym10} %%
18: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}} %%
19: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}} %%
20: \newcommand{\bqry}{\begin{eqnarray}} %%
21: \newcommand{\eqry}{\end{eqnarray}} %%
22: \newcommand{\bqryn}{\begin{eqnarray*}} %%
23: \newcommand{\eqryn}{\end{eqnarray*}} %%
24: \newcommand{\NL}{\nonumber \\} %%
25: \newcommand{\preprint}[1]{\begin{table}[t] %%
26: \begin{flushright} %%
27: \begin{large}{#1}\end{large} %%
28: \end{flushright} %%
29: \end{table}} %%
30: \newcommand{\eref}[1]{(\ref{#1})} %%
31: \newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{d^{#2}}{d#1^{#2}}} %%
32: \newcommand{\PD}[2] %%
33: {\frac{\partial^{#2}}{\partial #1^{#2}}} %%
34: \newcommand{\cc}{\mbox{\ffont C}} %%
35: \newcommand{\rr}{\mbox{\ffont R}} %%
36: \newcommand{\kk}{\mbox{\ffont K}} %%
37: \newcommand{\zz}{\mbox{\ffont Z}} %%
38: \newcommand{\ii}{\mbox{\ffont I}} %%
39: \newcommand{\nn}{\mbox{\ffont N}} %%
40: \newcommand{\qq}{\mbox{\ffont Q}} %%
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: %%%%%%%%% numbering equations by sections %%%%%%%%%%
43: %%\catcode`\@=11 \@addtoreset{equation}{section} %%
44: %%\renewcommand{\theequation} %%
45: %% {\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}} %%
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: \begin{document}
48: \preprint{LA-UR-99-6772}
49: \title{Analysis of Dislocation Mechanism for Melting \\ of Elements:
50: Pressure Dependence}
51: \author{\\ Leonid Burakovsky\thanks{E-mail: BURAKOV@T5.LANL.GOV}, \
52: Dean L. Preston\thanks{E-mail: DEAN@LANL.GOV}, \
53: and Richard R. Silbar\thanks{E-mail: SILBAR@WHISTLESOFT.COM. Also at
54: WhistleSoft, Inc., %168 Dos Brazos,
55: Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA
56: %\hspace*{0.5cm} NM 87544, USA
57: }
58: \\ \\
59: %Theoretical Division, MS B283 \\
60: Los Alamos National Laboratory \\ Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA }
61: \date{ }
62: \maketitle
63: \begin{abstract}
64: In the framework of melting as a dislocation-mediated phase transition we
65: derive an equation for the pressure dependence of the melting temperatures
66: of the elements valid up to pressures of order their ambient bulk moduli.
67: Melting curves are calculated for Al, Mg, Ni, Pb, the iron group (Fe, Ru, Os),
68: the chromium group (Cr, Mo, W), the copper group (Cu, Ag, Au), noble gases
69: (Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn), and six actinides (Am, Cm, Np, Pa, Th, U). These
70: calculated melting curves are in good agreement with existing data. We also
71: discuss the apparent equivalence of our melting relation and the Lindemann
72: criterion, and the lack of the rigorous proof of their equivalence. We show
73: that the would-be mathematical equivalence of both formulas must manifest
74: itself in a new relation between the Gr\"{u}neisen constant, bulk and
75: shear moduli, and the pressure derivative of the shear modulus.
76: \end{abstract}
77: \bigskip
78: \centerline{{\it Key words:} melting, string, dislocation, melting curve,
79: equation of state, high} %pressure,
80: \hspace*{3cm} pressure, elements, actinides
81:
82: \centerline{PACS: 62.50.+p, 64.10.+h, 64.70.Dv, 64.90.+b, 74.62.Fj, 77.84.Bw,
83: 91.60.Gf}
84: \bigskip
85:
86: \section{Introduction}
87:
88: The idea that a proliferation of dislocations is associated with melting dates
89: back to Mott \cite{Mott}. The very first theory of dislocation-mediated
90: melting \cite{MO} was a success, inasmuch as it predicted a first-order
91: transition, as a consequence of incorporating the mutual screening of
92: dislocations, in agreement with observations. Molecular dynamics \cite{MD}
93: and Monte Carlo \cite{MC} calculations have more recently provided further
94: evidence for the notion that dislocations drive the melting transition in
95: three dimensions. There is also some experimental evidence that line defects
96: are present in solids near melting \cite{Craw}.
97:
98: In refs.\ \cite{prev1,prev2} we formulated a dislocation theory of melting in
99: which dislocations near melt were modeled as non-interacting strings on a
100: lattice. The possible configurations of a dislocation were taken to be closed
101: random walks. Screening of long-range strain fields by other dislocations in
102: a dense ensemble %\cite{HL,Sar},
103: results in a $-\rho \ln \rho $ dependence of the free energy on the
104: dislocation density, $\rho ,$ and thus a first-order transition. We obtained
105: the following relation between the melting temperature $T_m,$ the shear
106: modulus, $G,$ the Wigner-Seitz volume, $v_{WS},$ the coordination number,
107: $z,$ and the critical density of dislocations, $\rho (T_m)$ (in units where
108: $k_B=1):$
109: \beq
110: T_m=\frac{\kappa \lambda Gv_{WS}}{8\pi \ln (z-1)}\;\!\ln \left( \frac{\alpha
111: ^2}{4b^2\rho (T_m)}\right) .
112: \eeq
113: Here $b$ is the length of the shortest perfect-dislocation Burgers vector,
114: $\kappa $ is 1 for a screw dislocation and $(1-\nu )^{-1}\approx 3/2$ for an
115: edge dislocation $(\nu $ is the Poisson ratio), $\lambda \equiv b^3/v_{WS}$
116: and $\alpha ,$ which accounts for non-linear effects in the dislocation core,
117: has a value of 2.9 \cite{prev2}. Experimental data on 51 elements show that
118: \beq
119: \frac{Gv_{WS}}{4\pi T_m\ln (z-1)}=1.01\pm 0.17
120: \eeq
121: at zero pressure \cite{prev1}. Eqs.\ (1) and (2) imply that the critical
122: dislocation density at zero pressure is
123: \beq
124: \rho (T_m)=(0.61\pm 0.20)\;\!b^{-2}.
125: \eeq
126: This value is in good agreement with the critical density
127: \beq
128: \rho (T_m)=(0.66\pm 0.11)\;\!b^{-2},
129: \eeq
130: obtained by applying our relation for the latent heat of fusion \cite{prev2},
131: \beq
132: L_m=\frac{1}{\lambda}\;\!b^2\rho (T_m)R\;\!T_m\ln (z-1),
133: \eeq
134: to data on latent heats for 75 elements. Hence, $b^2\rho (T_m)$ is
135: approximately constant across the Periodic Table with the numerical value
136: \beq
137: b^2\rho (T_m)=0.64\pm 0.14,
138: \eeq
139: which is the uncertainty-weighted average of Eqs.\ (3) and (4).
140:
141: In this paper we investigate the validity of our melting relation, Eq.\ (1),
142: up to pressures of order 100 GPa, by comparing to experimental melting curves,
143: i.e., melting temperatures versus pressure, $p.$ This comparison requires
144: $v_{WS}(p),$ or its equivalent, the pressure dependence of the compression,
145: $\eta \equiv V_0/V.$ We obtain $\eta (p)$ from the bulk modulus, $B(p),$ which
146: is extrapolated to high pressure using only its value and first pressure
147: derivative at ambient conditions, viz., room temperature and zero pressure.
148: The shear modulus $G(p)$ is similarly extrapolated to high pressure. Pressure
149: derivatives of $G$ and $B$ are typically $O(1),$ so the extrapolation of the
150: bulk modulus is expected to break down at pressures of order the ambient bulk
151: modulus. The parameter $\kappa $ in Eq.\ (1), which depends on the Poisson
152: ratio, varies by only a few percent between $p=0$ and 100 GPa (we discuss this
153: in more detail in Section 2). Since the accuracy of our melting relation at
154: zero pressure is 17\%, we take $\kappa $ to be a constant. We also make the
155: necessary but reasonable assumption that $b^2\rho (T_m)$ is also a
156: pressure-independent constant. With this assumption, we find that our melting
157: relation agrees well with experimental melting curves up to pressures $\approx
158: B,$ and, in fact, our extrapolation of $T_m$ is often in good agreement with
159: data to pressures $\approx 2B.$ In addition to the good agreement with the
160: existing melting curve data, we also predict the high-pressure melting
161: curves of Ag, Au, Cr, Cu, Mo, Os, Ru, W, and several actinides.
162:
163: \section{Melting curve equation}
164:
165: We now consider the pressure dependences of the factors appearing in our
166: melting relation, Eq.\ (1). The parameter $\lambda $ is constant by its
167: definition, $\alpha $ is also assumed to be a constant, and $\kappa $ may
168: be taken as constant provided that the Poisson ratio $\nu $ has a very
169: weak pressure dependence. In fact, for an isotropic medium \cite{Gschn}
170: \beq
171: \nu =\frac{1}{2}\;\!\frac{3B-2G}{3B+G}.
172: \eeq
173: Although both $G$ and $B$ vary with pressure, the ratio in Eq.\ (7) varies
174: only weakly. Consider, for example, Cu, for which $\nu \approx 0.34$
175: at $p=0.$ At $p=100$ GPa, we calculate the values of $G$ and $B$ with the
176: help of Eqs.\ (13) and (14) below, with their pressure derivatives taken from
177: ref.\ \cite{GS}, and find $\nu \approx 0.38.$ Therefore, in this case the
178: corresponding values of $1/\kappa \approx 1-\nu /2$ \cite{prev2}
179: are 0.83 and 0.81, respectively, so that the variation in the average value of
180: $1/\kappa $ is $\approx 2$\%. Thus, the pressure dependence of $1/\kappa $ can
181: be safely neglected. (There exists an upper bound on the change in the value
182: of $1/\kappa $ with pressure. In the ultra-high-pressure limit, $p\propto
183: \eta ^{5/3},$ in agreement with %the Thomas-Fermi theory \cite{Stein}.
184: the theory of the free electron gas (Fermi gas). Therefore, $B\equiv -Vdp/dV=
185: \eta \;\!dp/d\eta \propto \eta ^{5/3}\gg G\propto \eta ^{4/3},$ and hence $\nu
186: \rightarrow 1/2,$ in view of Eq.\ (7) (see also \cite{Kop}). Thus, in contrast
187: to the Poisson ratio which changes by $\approx 50$\%, $1/\kappa \approx 1-\nu
188: /2$ changes by $\approx 10$\%: $5/6\rightarrow 3/4.)$
189:
190: We assume further that the mean interdislocation spacing at the melting point,
191: $R\approx 1/\sqrt{\rho (T_m)},$ scales with $b,$ independent of pressure, and
192: hence $b^2\rho (T_m)$ is a pressure-independent constant (with a numerical
193: value of $0.64\pm 0.14,$ in view of Eq.\ (6)). It then follows from Eq.\ (1)
194: that, provided the coordination number does not change with pressure
195: (i.e., the element either remains in the same crystalline phase, or changes
196: phase without changing the coordination number, e.g., a face-centered cubic
197: structure $\leftrightarrow $ a hexagonal close-packed structure), the melting
198: relation is given by
199: \beq
200: \frac{G(p,T_m(p))v_{WS}(p,T_m(p))}{T_m(p)}={\rm const.}
201: \eeq
202:
203: The dependence of $v_{WS}$ on pressure and temperature is just the equation
204: of state of the metal. Let us first focus on its temperature dependence. The
205: fixed-pressure ratio of Wigner-Seitz volumes at $T_m$ and $T=0$ is equal to
206: $1+\beta T_m,$ where $\beta $ is the volume expansivity. At $p=0,$ $\beta $
207: is typically of order $10^{-5}$ K$^{-1},$ and melting temperatures are at most
208: about 4000 K, so $v_{WS}$ changes by only a few percent between $T=0$ and
209: $T_m.$ Assuming that $\beta $ does not increase appreciably with compression,
210: we can use room-temperature values for $v_{WS}.$
211:
212: In contrast to $v_{WS},$ the dependence of $G$ on $T$ is not necessarily weak.
213: Its $T$-dependence involves two characteristic temperatures, namely the Debye
214: temperature, $T_D,$ and the melting temperature. $G$ is always monotonically
215: decreasing with $T,$ and is nonlinear for $T\stackrel{<}{\sim }T_D$ and
216: linear from $T_D$ to $T_m.$ However, there are no experimental data, no
217: computer calculations, and no theoretical guidance that tells us how the
218: temperature dependence of $G$ varies with pressure. In particular, how does
219: the (negative) slope of the linear region vary with $p$? At this point we have
220: no choice but to conjecture. We assume that $G(p,T_m(p))/G(p,0)$ is a slowly
221: varying function of $p,$ so it can be considered constant up to moderate
222: compressions, say, 20\% to 30\%. Thus, $G(p,T_m)$ is replaced by $G(p,0)$
223: in Eq.\ (8). In addition, data on the $p=0$ temperature dependence of shear
224: moduli \cite{SW} clearly show that $G(p,300)\approx G(p,0),$ and therefore,
225: we use the room temperature value of the shear modulus in our melting relation.
226:
227: Subsequently, the explicit dependence of $G$ and $v_{WS}$ on $T$ will be
228: dropped. It will be understood that $G$ and $v_{WS}$ are at room temperature.
229: Our melting relation now reads
230: \beq
231: \frac{G(p)v_{WS}(p)}{T_m(p)}={\rm const.}
232: \eeq
233:
234: Differentiating Eq.\ (9) with respect to $p,$ one finds
235: \beq
236: \frac{1}{T_m}\;\!\frac{dT_m}{dp}=\frac{1}{G}\;\!\frac{dG}{dp}-\frac{1}{B},
237: \eeq
238: where we have used the definition of the bulk modulus,
239: \beq
240: B(p)\equiv -V\frac{dp}{dV}=-v_{WS}\frac{dp}{dv_{WS}}.
241: \eeq
242: Thus, upon integration, Eq.\ (10) gives
243: \beq
244: \frac{T_m(p)}{T_m(0)}=\frac{G(p)}{G(0)}\;\!\exp \;\!\left\{ -\int _0^p
245: \frac{dp'}{B(p')}\right\} .
246: \eeq
247: To proceed further, we have to specify $G(p)$ and $B(p).$
248:
249: \subsection{The shear modulus $G$ at finite pressure}
250:
251: For the shear modulus at all pressures, we use the relation \cite{GS2}
252: \beq
253: G=G_0+G'_0\;\!\frac{p}{\eta ^{1/3}},
254: \eeq
255: where $G_0'\equiv (dG/dp)_0.$ %and $\eta \equiv V_0/V.$
256: The subscript 0 refers to ambient conditions: $T\simeq 300$ K and $p=0.$
257:
258: This equation satisfies the requirement that
259: %the shear modulus should have an asymptotic compression dependence in
260: %agreement with the Thomas-Fermi theory in which $p\propto \eta ^{5/3}$ and
261: $G\propto \eta ^{4/3}$ as $\eta \rightarrow \infty ,$ since $p\propto \eta ^{
262: 5/3}.$ With the values of $G'_0$ for 32 elements tested in ref.\ \cite{GS2}
263: Eq.\ (13) gives nearly the right value for the proportionality constant
264: between $G$ and $\eta ^{4/3}$ at high compressions. Eq.\ (13) works
265: well for a diverse selection of engineering metals covering many different
266: crystal structures and nearly all groups of the Periodic Table \cite{GS2}.
267:
268: \subsection{Compression and the bulk modulus $B$ at finite pressure}
269:
270: Expanding the bulk modulus around $p=0$ we have
271: \beq
272: B(p)=B_0+B_0'p+\frac{1}{2}\;\!B_0''p^2+\ldots ,
273: \eeq
274: where $B_0$ and $B_0'\equiv (dB/dp)_0,$ $B_0''\equiv (d^2B/dp^2)_0,\ldots $
275: can be extracted from equation of state data. Values of $B_0''$ are known
276: for a few elements only (their determination is highly uncertain and involves
277: an error of order 100\% \cite{FI}), and besides, $B_0''$ first appears in the
278: $(p/B_0)^3$ term in the power series expansion of $\eta :$
279: $$\eta =\exp \;\!\left\{ \int _0^p\frac{dp'}{B(p')}\right\}=\left[ \frac{2B_0+
280: (B_0'+\sqrt{B_0'^2-2B_0B_0''})\;\!p}{2B_0+(B_0'-\sqrt{B_0'^2-2B_0B_0''})\;\!p}
281: \right] ^{1/\sqrt{B_0'^2-2B_0B_0''}}$$
282: \beq
283: =1+\left( \frac{p}{B_0}\right) -\frac{B_0'-1}{2}\left( \frac{p}{B_0}\right) ^2
284: +\frac{(B_0'-1)(2B_0'-1)-B_0B_0''}{6}\left( \frac{p}{B_0}\right) ^3+\ldots \;.
285: \eeq
286: Since only $B_0$ and $B_0'$ are generally known (for almost all the elements,
287: see ref.\ \cite{GS}), we restrict ourselves instead to the first two terms in
288: Eq.\ (14). Then the compression simplifies to
289: \beq
290: \eta =\left( 1+\frac{B_0'}{B_0}\;\!p\right) ^{1/B'_0}\!.
291: \eeq
292: Eqs.\ (15) and (16) are two different approximations to
293: the Murnaghan equation of state \cite{Murn,HS}.
294:
295: It then follows from Eqs.\ (12), (13) and (16) that the equation of the
296: melting curve is
297: \beq
298: T_m(p)=T_m(0)\left( 1+\frac{B'_0}{B_0}\;\!p\right) ^{-1/B'_0}\left[ 1+\frac{
299: G'_0}{G_0}\;\!p\left( 1+\frac{B'_0}{B_0}\;\!p\right)
300: ^{-1/3B'_0}\right] .
301: \eeq
302: As discussed in Section 4, this equation is only valid for pressures
303: $p\stackrel{<}{\sim }2B.$
304:
305: It follows from (17) that for $p\ll B_0$
306: \beq
307: T_m(p)=T_m(0)\left[ 1+\left( \frac{B_0G_0'}{G_0}-1\right) \left( \frac{p}{B_0}
308: \right) -\left( \frac{4}{3}\;\!\frac{B_0G_0'}{G_0}-\frac{B_0'+1}{2}\right)
309: \left( \frac{p}{B_0}\right) ^2+\ldots \right] .
310: \eeq
311: For the vast majority of the elements, $B_0'>5/3$ and $B'$ approaches 5/3 in
312: the limit of large compressions. (In this limit $p\propto \eta ^{5/3},$ and
313: therefore $B\equiv -Vdp/dV=\eta \;\!dp/d\eta =5p/3,$ i.e., $B'=5/3.)$ In fact,
314: the average value of $B_0'$ for the 65 elements analyzed in \cite{GS}, except
315: for Ce for which $B_0'<0,$ is $4.30\pm 1.40.$ Hence, if
316: \beq
317: \frac{G_0'}{G_0}>\frac{3}{8}\;\!\frac{B_0'+1}{B_0},
318: \eeq
319: it follows from $B_0'>5/3$ that also $G_0'/G_0>1/B_0,$ i.e., Eq.\ (18) is of
320: the form $T_m(p)=T_m(0)(1+ap-bp^2+\ldots ),$ $a,b>0,$ and describes melting
321: curves for which melting temperatures increase with pressure \cite{Young}.
322: If, however,
323: \beq
324: \frac{G_0'}{G_0}<\frac{1}{B_0}
325: \eeq
326: and $B_0'>5/3,$ then also $G_0'/G_0<3/8\;\!(B_0'+1)/B_0,$ i.e., Eq.\ (18) is
327: of the form $T_m(p)=T_m(0)(1-ap+bp^2-\ldots ),$ $a,b>0,$ and describes melting
328: curves for which melting temperatures initially decrease with pressure
329: \cite{Young}. For Si, for example, with the data from ref.\ \cite{GS} we find
330: $G_0'/G_0<1/B_0$ and $B_0'=4.19,$ in agreement with the negative initial slope
331: of the experimental melting curve. Eqs.\ (19) and (20) plus $B_0'>5/3$
332: should be considered our criteria for the two types of melting curves
333: discussed above.
334:
335: \section{Melting curves: comparison with data}
336:
337: In this section we compare our melting curve, Eq.\ (17), to some experimental
338: melting curves, and predict a number of melting curves that can be compared
339: with experiment in the not-so-distant future.
340:
341: We have found 5 elements for which melting curves have been measured to higher
342: pressures, $p\sim O(100$ GPa): Al, Fe, Ni, Pb and U. We compare experimental
343: data for these elements with our curves in Figs.\ 1-5. For Al, we also show
344: the best fit to data in the form of the Simon equation, $T_m(p)=T_m(0)(1+ap)^
345: b$ \cite{Al}. For Fe, the experimental data are from ref.\ \cite{Fe}, and from
346: ref.\ \cite{Ni} for Ni. For Pb, we combine the high-pressure data of ref.\
347: \cite{Pb} with the low-pressure data of ref.\ \cite{Pb2} as corrected in ref.\
348: \cite{Pb3}. For U, the high-pressure data of ref.\ \cite{U} are combined with
349: the low-pressure data of ref.\ \cite{U2}.
350:
351: As claimed in ref.\ \cite{Al}, the Simon equation may not be the best
352: functional form for a fit to data. In fact, the initial slope provided by this
353: equation for the Al melting curve is 80 K/GPa, in contrast to 59 and 65 K/GPa
354: from the two previous low-pressure measurements \cite{Al}. This accounts for
355: the difference between the two curves in Fig.\ 1.
356: %For comparison, our melting curve has an initial slope of 52 K/GPa. See,
357: %however, our comment in the end of Section 3.
358:
359: In Fig.\ 4, in addition to Fe, we also plot melting curves for Ru and Os,
360: elements in the same column of the Periodic Table. Those curves should be
361: considered predictions for these metals.
362:
363: In Fig.\ 5, in addition to U for which there are high-pressure data, we also
364: plot melting curves for the 5 actinides Am, Cm, Np, Pa and Th. For Np, we also
365: show the low-pressure data of ref.\ \cite{Np}. We do not show the low-pressure
366: data of ref.\ \cite{Am} for Am since they would overlay the low-pressure U
367: data. We have checked that our melting curve is in agreement with the
368: low-pressure Am data. For Cm, the values of $B_0$ and $B_0'$ are taken from
369: ref.\ \cite{Cm}, and the value of $G_0$ is that estimated in ref.\
370: \cite{prev1}. For Pa, the values of $B_0$ and $G_0$ come from ref.\
371: \cite{Gschn}. We estimate the values of $G_0'$ for Cm and Pa from Th and U,
372: their neighbors in the same row in the Periodic Table. Our earlier $G_0'$
373: estimates for Am and Np lead to $\gamma =1.05$ and 1.09, respectively, in
374: Eq.\ (24), which implies that such estimates are reliable. The values of
375: $B_0'$ for Np and Pa are also estimated by interpolating between Am, Cm, Th
376: and U. (We note that this estimation of $B_0'$ is justified by the pronounced
377: periodic behavior of $B_0'$ in $Z$ \cite{Stein}.) The value of $B_0'$ for Am
378: is taken from \cite{Am}. We emphasize that the predicted melting curves assume
379: constancy of coordination number along them. In the case of Am, e.g., there is
380: still disagreement over the correct sequence of phases and their transition
381: pressures \cite{Young}, so this assumption may well be incorrect. For Th,
382: however, it is claimed that there is a transition from a face-centered cubic
383: structure to a body-centered tetragonal structure that changes coordination
384: number \cite{Vohra}. This transition occurs in the pressure range of $70-100$
385: GPa \cite{Vohra}, and thus our predictions for the Th melting curve up to
386: 75 GPa should be quite reliable.
387:
388: Although we can account for a decrease in melting temperature with pressure
389: in our theoretical framework (Eqs. (17),(20)), we do not consider such cases
390: here, among which there are Pu and Ce. It has been established \cite{Th}
391: that for Th, which is in the same column as Ce, $\triangle V>0,$ and
392: therefore, in view of Eq.\ (23), its melting temperature increases with
393: pressure.
394:
395: %
396: %\hskip 1.9in
397: % \epsfysize=3in
398: \begin{center}
399: \vspace{2cm}
400: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
401: \epsfig{file=CurvesAl.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
402: \end{center}
403: Fig.\ 1. Melting curve for Al. The dashed line is the Simon-fit to the data
404: of ref.\ \cite{Al}, which are not shown explicitly. The diamonds are the
405: low-pressure data from ref.\ \cite{LW}. The triangle is the shock-melting
406: point at 125 GPa from ref.\ \cite{Al3}. The boxes are the points at 25, 69
407: and 137 GPa calculated in ref.\ \cite{Urlin} from shock-melting data.
408: They are assigned 20\% error bars \cite{Urlin}.
409: \\
410:
411: %\hskip 1.9in
412: % \epsfysize=3in
413: \begin{center}
414: \vspace{-0.3cm}
415: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
416: \epsfig{file=CurvesNi.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
417: \end{center}
418: Fig.\ 2. Melting curve for Ni. The diamonds (with small error bars) are the
419: data of ref.\ \cite{Ni}. The boxes are the points at 79 and 250 GPa calculated
420: in ref.\ \cite{Urlin} from shock-melting data. The corresponding error bars
421: are not quoted in ref.\ \cite{Urlin}.
422: \\
423:
424: %\hskip 1.9in
425: % \epsfysize=3in
426: \begin{center}
427: %\vspace{0.5cm}
428: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
429: \epsfig{file=CurvesPb_1.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
430: \end{center}
431: Fig.\ 3. Melting curve for Pb. The diamonds are the low-pressure data of
432: ref.\ \cite{Pb2} corrected as in ref.\ \cite{Pb3}. The triangles are the data
433: from ref.\ \cite{Pb}, and the dashed line is a best fit \cite{Pb} to the data.
434: The boxes are the points at 12, 34 and 68 GPa calculated in ref.\ \cite{Urlin}
435: from shock-melting data. The corresponding error bars are not quoted
436: in ref.\ \cite{Urlin}. The star is the point at 118 GPa calculated in ref.\
437: \cite{God} from shock-melting data.
438: \\
439:
440: %\hskip 1.9in
441: % \epsfysize=3in
442: \begin{center}
443: \vspace{2cm}
444: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
445: \epsfig{file=CurvesFeRuOs.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
446: \end{center}
447: Fig.\ 4. Melting curves for the elements of the iron group (Fe, Ru, Os). The
448: diamonds are the data of ref.\ \cite{Fe}, and the dashed line is a best fit
449: \cite{Fe} to the data. The boxes are the shock-melting points at 235 GPa and
450: 300 GPa \cite{Fe2}. The triangle is the shock-melting point at 240 GPa
451: \cite{Fe3}. The star is the shock-melting point at 243 GPa \cite{Fe4}.
452: \\
453:
454: %\hskip 1.9in
455: % \epsfysize=3in
456: \begin{center}
457: \vspace{0.5cm}
458: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
459: \epsfig{file=CurvesActinides.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
460: \end{center}
461: Fig.\ 5. Melting curves for the actinides Am, Cm, Np, Pa, Th and U. The data
462: for U are from ref.\ \cite{U}, and for Np they come from ref.\ \cite{Np}.
463: \\
464:
465: In Fig.\ 6 we plot the low-pressure data of ref.\ \cite{W} for W, and our
466: melting curves for W, Mo and Cr. The initial slope of our melting curve of
467: Mo, 26 K/GPa, is consistent with that predicted in ref.\ \cite{Mo}:
468: $(34\pm 6)$ K/GPa. The same melting curve gives $T_m\simeq 9650$ K at $p=390$
469: GPa, in good agreement with the shock-melting temperature $\sim 10000$ K at
470: the same pressure, found in ref.\ \cite{Mo2}.
471:
472: %
473: %\hskip 1.9in
474: % \epsfysize=3in
475: \begin{center}
476: \vspace{2cm}
477: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
478: \epsfig{file=CurvesCrMoW.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
479: \end{center}
480: Fig.\ 6. Melting curves for the elements of the chromium group (Cr, Mo, W).
481: The data for W are from ref.\ \cite{W}.
482: \\
483:
484: In Fig.\ 7 we compare the low-pressure data of ref.\ \cite{CuAgAu} for Cu, Ag
485: and Au with our corresponding melting curves. Although the initial slopes of
486: these curves are somewhat less than those of the data (the corresponding
487: values of $\gamma $ in Fig.\ 1 are $\simeq 0.8),$ they are in good agreement
488: with the best extrapolation of data to higher pressures made in ref.\
489: \cite{CuAgAu}, and with the calculation of ref.\ \cite{Urlin} in the case of
490: Cu.
491:
492: %
493: %\hskip 1.9in
494: % \epsfysize=3in
495: \begin{center}
496: \vspace{2cm}
497: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
498: \epsfig{file=CurvesCuAgAuCombo.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
499: \end{center}
500: Fig.\ 7. Melting curves for the elements of the copper group (Cu, Ag,
501: Au). The diamonds, the stars, and the triangles are the low-pressure data of
502: ref.\ \cite{CuAgAu} in the inset, and the best extrapolations of these data
503: to 20 and 30 GPa in the main plot for Cu, Ag and Au, respectively. The boxes
504: are the points at 45 and 128 GPa calculated in ref.\ \cite{Urlin} from
505: shock-melting data for Cu. The corresponding error bars are not quoted
506: \cite{Urlin}. The gray diamond is the shock-melting point for Cu
507: at 37 GPa \cite{Cu2}.
508: \\
509:
510: In Fig.\ 8 we compare the low-pressure data on the noble gases to our
511: corresponding melting curves. The unknown values of $G'_0$ for Ne, Ar, Kr
512: and Xe are calculated with the help of Eq.\ (25) below using the measured
513: values of $B_0,$ $G_0$ and $\gamma _0$ (the Gr\"{u}neisen constant)
514: \cite{prev2}. The values of $B_0'$ for Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe are taken from
515: \cite{B'}. In the case of Rn, for which $B_0,$ $B_0',$ $G_0$ and $G_0'$ have
516: not been measured, we first calculate $G_0$ using the (approximate) relation
517: $GV/T_m={\rm const}$ for the noble-gas group, where $V=v_{WS}N_A$ is the
518: molar volume. This relation follows from Eq.\ (1) provided that $\kappa ,$
519: $\lambda ,$ $\alpha $ and $z$ do not vary within this group. The value of the
520: constant is determined by using the corresponding Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe data in
521: this relation. We then calculate $B_0$ using Eq.\ (7) with the value of the
522: Poisson ratio for Rn determined by extrapolating from the corresponding values
523: for Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe. Finally, we determine both $B_0'$ and $G_0'$ by again
524: extrapolating the Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe data.
525:
526: %
527: %\hskip 1.9in
528: % \epsfysize=3in
529: \begin{center}
530: \vspace{2cm}
531: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
532: \epsfig{file=CurvesNobleGases.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
533: \end{center}
534: Fig.\ 8. Melting curves for the noble gases Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe and Rn.
535: The diamonds are the data of ref.\ \cite{Ne}. The stars are the data of
536: ref.\ \cite{Ar}. The boxes and triangles come from ref.\ \cite{KrXe}.
537: \\
538:
539: Finally, in Fig.\ 9 we show the experimental data and our theoretical
540: melting curve for Mg.
541:
542: %
543: %\hskip 1.9in
544: % \epsfysize=3in
545: \begin{center}
546: \vspace{-0.8cm}
547: %\parbox{6in}{abs }
548: \epsfig{file=CurvesMg.eps,width=15cm,angle=0}
549: \end{center}
550: Fig.\ 9. Melting curve for Mg. The low-pressure data are from ref.\
551: \cite{Mg_}. The high-pressure data are the shock-melting points of ref.\
552: \cite{Mg^}.
553: \\
554:
555: The 24 melting curves considered above constitute convincing evidence for the
556: validity of our formula for melting temperature as a function of pressure,
557: Eq.\ (17).
558:
559: \section{The range of validity of the new melting curve equation}
560:
561: In deriving our melting curve, Eq.\ (17), we have used both Eq.\ (13) for
562: the pressure dependence of the shear modulus and the Murnaghan equation of
563: state, Eq.\ (16). Since Eq.\ (13) has the correct zero-pressure limit (its
564: Taylor series expansion in $p$ at $p=0$ is $G=G_0+G_0'p-(G_0'/3B_0)p^2+\ldots
565: )$ and is claimed to have the correct ultra-high-pressure limit \cite{GS2},
566: we assume that this equation is valid over the entire pressure range. In any
567: event, we do not have data to either confirm or invalidate this assumption. It
568: then follows that the range of validity of Eq.\ (17) depends crucially on the
569: range of validity of the Murnaghan equation of state, Eq.\ (16).
570:
571: The Murnaghan equation of state was examined in ref.\ \cite{HS}, together
572: with a number of different equations of state, by comparing with the
573: theoretical results calculated by the augmented-plane-wave method and the
574: quantum-mechanical model proposed by Kalitkin and Kuz'mina \cite{KK} from
575: low to ultra-high pressures. It was shown that the Murnaghan equation
576: %with the real low-pressure values for $B_0$ and $B_0'$
577: is in good agreement with the theoretical results up to $V/V_0\simeq 0.7,$
578: i.e., up to compressions $\simeq 1.4-1.5.$ Since for the vast majority of the
579: elements $B_0'\approx 5$ \cite{GS},
580: %it is seen in Eq.\ (16) , with $B_0'=4-5,$ $\eta =
581: %1.43-1.50$ for $p=B.$ With $B_0'=6-8,$ $\eta =1.42-1.53$ for $p=2B.$ Thus,
582: we conclude, on the basis of Eq.\ (16), that the Murnaghan equation, and
583: consequently, our equation for melting curve, Eq.\ (17), is valid up to
584: pressures $p\approx 2B_0.$ The melting curves for Al and Pb in Figs.\ 1 and 3,
585: respectively, and for Ne and Ar in Fig.\ 8 show that in some cases Eq.\ (17)
586: is good to pressures even greater than $2B_0.$
587:
588: For reliable predictions of melting curves to much higher pressures,
589: $p\stackrel{>}{\sim }1$ TPa, one has to use a better equation of state than
590: Murnaghan's. Hama and Suito \cite{HS} claim that the Vinet equation of state
591: \cite{Vinet} is consistent with first-principles theoretical calculations to
592: compressions $\eta \sim 5.$ Reference \cite{CGH} also finds the Vinet equation
593: of state to be most accurate among various suggested equations of state.
594: In fact, we have calculated that the melting temperatures for Fe and Pb at
595: pressures $p\sim 50\;\!B_0$ as given by Eq.\ (17) are about two times higher
596: than those given by a relation that derives from Eqs.\ (12), (13), and the
597: Vinet equation of state.
598:
599: Another possible source of disagreement between the new melting curve, Eq.\
600: (17), and data may be inaccurate values of elastic constants and their pressure
601: derivatives in some cases. The Murnaghan equation and its frequently used
602: partner -- the Birch equation \cite{Birch} -- are derived from the
603: second-order Taylor series expansion of the bulk modulus [as in Eq.\ (14)] or
604: the elastic strain energy with respect to pressure or strain, respectively.
605: Thus their validities are, in principle, restricted to a narrow range of
606: compression. Extending this range would entail the inclusion of higher-order
607: terms. This could explain why the values of $B_0,$ and especially those of
608: $B_0'$ and $B_0'',$ obtained from experiments which cover different ranges of
609: compression by using a fitting method, are usually different. In many cases
610: these differences between different experiments are small and can be safely
611: neglected. In some cases, however, they are large, and so their use for
612: predicting physical observables, such as melting temperature, is dubious.
613: For example, in the case of Ni, we have used the value $B_0'=6.20$ given
614: in \cite{GS}. Reference \cite{Ger}, however, quotes $B_0'\simeq 30$ (!).
615: Similarly, for Mo we have used $B_0'=4.4$ of ref.\ \cite{GS}, while ref.\
616: \cite{Ger} gives $B_0'\simeq 20.$ (We note that the use of the values $B_0'=
617: 6.20$ for Ni and 4.4 for Mo is justified in view of the recent compilations
618: of experimental data on $B_0'$ \cite{RMR}.) Although the numerical value of
619: $B_0'$ does not matter at low $p,$ since it first appears in the $(p/B_0)^2$
620: term, in view of Eq.\ (15), it would strongly affect the predicted melting
621: curve at pressures $p\sim O(B_0).$
622:
623: There are also inconsistencies in the values of $G_0$ quoted in the
624: literature. For example, for Pb we use the value $G_0=8.6$ GPa from ref.\
625: \cite{GS}, whereas ref.\ \cite{Gschn} quotes $G=5.5$ GPa. (Our own calculation
626: \cite{prev1}, based on the values of the elastic constants $c_{11},$ $c_{12}$
627: and $c_{44},$ shows that 8.6 GPa is preferred over 5.5 GPa.) Likewise the
628: values of $G_0$ for K and Na from ref.\ \cite{GS} are 0.9 and 1.98 GPa,
629: whereas ref.\ \cite{Gschn} quotes 1.3 and 3.5 GPa, respectively.
630:
631: %\section{Apparent equivalence of defect and mechanical approaches to melting
632: %curve}
633: \section{Relation of dislocation-based melting relation to the Lindemann
634: criterion}
635:
636: The well-known Lindemann melting rule is based on the assumption that all
637: elemental solids melt when the atomic vibrational amplitude is a fixed
638: pressure-independent fraction of the interatomic distance. As shown by
639: Lindemann \cite{Lin}, this implies the invariance of the Lindemann number
640: \beq
641: \theta _D\left( \frac{M}{T_m}\right) ^{1/2}V^{1/3}=L
642: \eeq
643: along the melting curve. Here $\theta _D$ is the density-dependent Debye
644: temperature, $V$ is the molar volume, and $M$ is the molar mass. It is found
645: that $L\approx 150$ \cite{Gschn}.
646:
647: There are compelling reasons to suppose that our dislocation-based melting
648: relation is somehow equivalent to the Lindemann criterion. First of all, Eq.\
649: (21) gives melting curves that are typically very close to those predicted by
650: our dislocation-based melting relation. (For example, the melting curve for Mg
651: in Fig.\ 6.3 of ref.\ \cite{Young} is {\it very} similar to our curve in Fig.\
652: 9.) Furthermore, the Lindemann number, which is proportional to the ratio of
653: atomic vibrational amplitude to the lattice constant at melt, is analogous to
654: $b^2\rho (T_m),$ since both are presumed constant along the melting curve.
655: In the dislocation-based approach, melting is associated with a critical
656: configuration of dislocations, and for any such configuration there is a
657: corresponding mean displacement of atoms from their equilibrium positions.
658: Hence $L$ and $b^2\rho (T_m)$ are clearly related, and therefore the
659: left-hand sides of Eqs.\ (9) and (21) are related as well.
660:
661: The mathematical equivalence of our melting relation and the Lindemann
662: criterion would be established if it could be determined that the left-hand
663: side of Eq.\ (21) is a fixed fraction of the left-hand side of Eq.\ (9). A
664: search of the literature has turned up two results which show that $L^2$ is
665: {\it approximately} proportional to $Gv_{WS}/T_m.$ For a Debye solid the
666: relation is \cite{Klein} $L^2=f(\nu (p,T))Gv_{WS}/T_m,$ where $f$ is a
667: complicated function of $\nu .$ Thus the two melting relations are not
668: rigorously equivalent.
669:
670: A second connection between the two melting formulas is provided by the
671: following approximation for the Gr\"{u}neisen constant \cite{GS},
672: \beq
673: \gamma (p)=\frac{2}{3}\;\!\gamma _S(p)+\frac{1}{3}\;\!\gamma _L(p),
674: \eeq
675: where
676: \beq
677: \gamma _S(p)=\frac{G'(p)}{2}\;\!\frac{B^T(p)}{G(p)}-\frac{1}{6},
678: \eeq
679: \beq
680: \gamma _L(p)=\frac{1}{2}\;\!\frac{B^T(p)}{B^S(p)+\frac{4}{3}G(p)}\;\!\frac{
681: d(B^S(p)+\frac{4}{3}G(p))}{dp}-\frac{1}{6},
682: \eeq
683: are the contributions of the shear (transverse) and longitudinal acoustic
684: modes. Here $B^T$ is the isothermal bulk modulus, which is equivalent to
685: $B$ that we are using in this paper. Eqs.\ (22)-(24) follow from the two
686: assumptions that (i) the only appreciable contribution to the heat capacity
687: of a crystal arises from lattice vibrations, and (ii) averaging over all modes
688: is equivalent to averaging only over the low-frequency acoustic modes. (I.e.,
689: the contribution of the optical modes is equal to that of the acoustic modes.)
690: If in addition it is assumed that $B^S(p),$ the isentropic bulk modulus, is
691: proportional to $G(p),$ then
692: \beq
693: \gamma _S(p)=\gamma _L(p)=\gamma (p)=\frac{G'(p)}{2}\;\!\frac{B(p)}{G(p)}-
694: \frac{1}{6}.
695: \eeq
696: However, there is no basis for this assumption, i.e., $\gamma _S(p)\neq \gamma
697: _L(p)$ is to be expected. For example, in the ultra-high pressure limit,
698: $B^S(p)\sim B^T(p)=5p/3$ and $G(p)\sim p^{4/5},$ quite different dependencies.
699:
700: Integration of Eq.\ (25), using $B(p)=-dp/d\ln V(p)$ and $\gamma (p)=-d\ln
701: \theta _D(p)/d\ln V(p),$ gives
702: \beq
703: \frac{\theta _D^2(p)V^{2/3}(p)/T_m(p)}{G(p)V(p)/T_m(p)}={\rm const,}
704: \eeq
705: that is, $L^2\propto Gv_{WS}/T_m.$ We emphasize that this proportionality
706: is founded on a number of uncontrolled approximations.
707:
708: Equation (25), which would ensure a rigorous mathematical equivalence of
709: the defect and mechanical (Lindemann's) approaches to melting, does {\it not}
710: follow from first principles. %even under certain assumptions.
711: This means that the defect and mechanical approaches to melting are basically
712: {\it different.} Moreover, since the mechanical approach does not have a solid
713: thermodynamic basis, it cannot, for example, predict the latent heat of
714: fusion. In contrast, the defect approach
715: %establishes the melting rule, in terms of Eqs.\ (1),(6), which can be
716: %translated into the Lindemann rule, in view of Eq.\ (24), and, in addition,
717: predicts the latent heat of fusion, Eq.\ (9), which is in good
718: agreement with data for three-quarters of the Periodic Table \cite{prev2}.
719:
720: Finally, we wish to make the following comments on Eq.\ (25). We did not check
721: extensively its validity at zero pressure,
722: %i.e., the validity of the relation $\gamma _0=G'_0/2\;B_0/G_0-1/6,$
723: since that would go beyond the scope of this paper. We do, however,
724: have some evidence that Eq.\ (25) is rather well satisfied:
725: with the data from ref.\ \cite{GS}, we calculate from the above relation
726: $\gamma _0=2.25$ vs.\ measured 2.40 for Ag, 3.08 vs.\ 2.99 for Au, 1.66 vs.\
727: 1.78 for Fe, 1.28 vs.\ 1.29 for K, and 1.18 vs.\ 1.19 for Na. We have actually
728: used Eq.\ (25) in Section 3 to calculate $G_0'$ for noble gases in order to
729: get their melting curves via Eq.\ (17) and to compare with experiment. Good
730: agreement between the calculated and experimental curves is another hint
731: on the approximate validity of this formula. Also, Eq.\ (25) has the correct
732: ultra-high-pressure limit in which $\gamma \rightarrow 1/2$ \cite{Kop},
733: since in this limit $G\sim p^{4/5}$ and $B=5p/3.$
734:
735: \section{Concluding remarks}
736:
737: We have extended the framework of melting as a string-mediated phase
738: transition to non-zero pressure and derived a new equation for the
739: melting curve, Eq.\ (17). As discussed above, with accurate experimental
740: values of all the parameters involved, this equation reproduces the
741: existing experimental melting data, and predicts unknown melting curves to
742: pressures $p\stackrel{<}{\sim }2B_0.$ For higher pressures, a better equation
743: of state than Murnaghan's should be used, e.g., the Vinet equation of state.
744:
745: We have addressed the apparent equivalence of defect and mechanical
746: approaches to melting curve, and demonstrated that both approaches are
747: basically different. We have shown that their would-be rigorous mathematical
748: equivalence must manifest itself in a new relation, Eq.\ (25),
749: %the validity of which has not been tested here.
750: which we have not tested in detail.
751:
752: To summarize, we have calculated melting curves for 24 elements: Al, Mg, Ni,
753: Pb, the iron group (Fe, Ru, Os), the chromium group (Cr, Mo, W), the copper
754: group (Cu, Ag, Au), the noble gases Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe and Rn, and the six
755: actinides Am, Cm, Np, Pa, Th and U. These calculated melting curves are
756: in good agreement with existing data.
757:
758: \section*{Acknowledgements}
759:
760: We wish to thank T. Goldman and A.Z. Patashinski for valuable discussions
761: during the preparation of this work. One of us (L.B.) wishes to thank
762: B.K. Godwal for useful correspondence.
763:
764: \bigskip
765: \bigskip
766: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
767: \bibitem{Mott} C. Mott, Proc. Roy. Soc. A {\bf 215} (1952) 1
768: \bibitem{MO} S. Mizushima, J. Phys. Soc. Japan {\bf 15} (1960) 70 \\
769: A. Ookawa, J. Phys. Soc. Japan {\bf 15} (1960) 2191
770: %\bibitem{Poirier} J.P. Poirier, Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc. {\bf 85} (1986)
771: %315
772: \bibitem{MD} R.M.J. Cotterill, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 42} (1979) 1541
773: \bibitem{MC} W. Janke, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 29} (1990) 1251 \\
774: L. G\'{o}mez, A. Dobry and H.T. Diep, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55} (1997) 6265
775: \bibitem{Craw} R.K. Crawford, Bul. Am. Phys. Soc. {\bf 24} (1979) 385 \\
776: R.M.J. Cotterill and J.K. Kristensen, Phil. Mag. {\bf 36} (1977) 453 \\
777: Y. Wang and K. Kakimoto, J. Crystal Growth {\bf 208} (2000) 303
778: \bibitem{prev1} L. Burakovsky and D.L. Preston, Analysis of dislocation
779: mechanism for melting of elements, Los Alamos preprint LA-UR-99-4171
780: [cond-mat/0003494], Solid State Comm., {\it in press}
781: \bibitem{prev2} L. Burakovsky, D.L. Preston and R.R. Silbar, Melting as a
782: string-mediated phase transition, Los Alamos preprint LA-UR-99-5914
783: [cond-mat/0004011], Phys. Rev. B, {\it in press}
784: %\bibitem{HL} J.P. Hirth and J. Lothe, {\it Theory of Dislocations,} 2nd ed.,
785: %(Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL, 1992)
786: %\bibitem{Sar} G.F. Sarafanov, Phys. Solid State {\bf 39} (1997) 1403
787: \bibitem{Gschn} K.A. Gschneidner, Jr., in {\it Solid State Physics, Advances
788: in Research and Applications,} Eds. F. Seitz and D. Turnbull, (Academic Press,
789: New York, 1965), Vol.\ 16, p.\ 275
790: \bibitem{GS} M.W. Guinan and D.J. Steinberg, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 35}
791: (1974) 1501
792: \bibitem{Kop} V.P. Kopyshev, Sov. Phys. Doklady {\bf 10} (1965) 338
793: \bibitem{SW} G. Simmons and H. Wang, {\it Single Crystal Elastic Constants and
794: Calculated Aggregate Properties,} 2nd ed., (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971)
795: \bibitem{GS2} M. Guinan and D. Steinberg, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 36} (1975)
796: 829
797: \bibitem{FI} J. Freund and R. Inglass, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 50} (1989)
798: 263
799: \bibitem{Murn} F.D. Murnaghan, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. US {\bf 30} (1944) 244
800: \bibitem{HS} J. Hama and K. Suito, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. {\bf 8} (1996) 67
801: %\bibitem{KKD} P. Kuchhal, R. Kumar and N. Dass, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. {\bf 9}
802: %(1997) 2987
803: \bibitem{Young} D.A. Young, {\it Phase Diagrams of the Elements,} (University
804: of California Press, Berkeley, 1991)
805: \bibitem{Am} D.R. Stephens, H.D. Stromberg and E.M. Lilley, J. Phys. Chem.
806: Solids {\bf 29} (1968) 815
807: \bibitem{Np} D.R. Stephens, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 27} (1966) 1201
808: \bibitem{Tonkov} E.Yu. Tonkov, {\it High Pressure Phase Transformations,}
809: (Gordon and Breach, Philadelphia, 1992)
810: \bibitem{Ubb} A.R. Ubbelohde, {\it The Molten State of Matter,} (Wiley, New
811: York, 1978)
812: \bibitem{Ir} G.R. Gathers, J.W. Shaner, R.S. Hixson and D.A. Young, High
813: Temp.-High Press. {\bf 11} (1979) 653
814: \bibitem{Mo} J.W. Shaner, G.R. Gathers and C. Minichino, High Temp.-High Press.
815: {\bf 9} (1977) 331
816: \bibitem{Nb} W.M. Hodgson, Ph.D. thesis (Lawrence Livermore preprint UCRL-52493
817: (1978)
818: \bibitem{Th} M. Boivineau, H. Colin, J.M. Vermeulen and Th. Th\'{e}venin, Int.
819: J. Thermophys. {\bf 17} (1996) 1001
820: \bibitem{W} A. Kloss, H. Hess, H. Schneidenbach and R. Grossjohann, Int. J.
821: Thermophys. {\bf 20} (1999) 1199
822: \bibitem{MYR} J.A. Moriarty, D.A. Young and M. Ross, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 30}
823: (1984) 578
824: \bibitem{Al} R. Boehler and M. Ross, Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. {\bf 153}
825: (1997) 223
826: \bibitem{Fe} Q. Williams, R. Jeanloz, J. Bass, B. Svedensen and T.J. Ahrens,
827: Science {\bf 236} (1987) 181
828: \bibitem{Ni} P. Lazor, G. Shen and S.K. Saxena, Phys. Chem. Min. {\bf 20}
829: (1993) 86
830: \bibitem{Pb} B.K. Godwal, C. Meade, R. Jeanloz, A. Garcia, A.Y. Liu and
831: L. Cohen, Science {\bf 248} (1990) 462
832: \bibitem{Pb2} P.W. Mirwald and G.C. Kennedy, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 37}
833: (1976) 795
834: \bibitem{Pb3} M. Akaishi, H. Kanda, N. Setaka and O. Fukunaga, Japan J. Appl.
835: Phys. {\bf 16} (1977) 1077
836: \bibitem{U} C.S. Yoo, J. Akella and J.A. Moriarty, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}
837: (1993) 15529
838: \bibitem{U2} J. Ganguly and G.C. Kennedy, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 34}
839: (1973) 2272
840: \bibitem{Cm} R.G. Haire, U. Benedict, J.R. Peterson, C. Dufour and
841: J.P. Iti\'{e}, J. Less-Common Met. {\bf 109} (1985) 71
842: \bibitem{Stein} D.J. Steinberg, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 43} (1982) 1173
843: \bibitem{Vohra} Y.K. Vohra and J. Akella, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67} (1991)
844: 3563 \\ K. Ghandehari and Y.K. Vohra, Scr. Metal. Mater. {\bf 27} (1992) 195
845: \bibitem{LW} J. Lees and B.H.J. Williamson, Nature {\bf 208} (1965) 278
846: \bibitem{Al3} J.M. Shaner, J.M. Brown and R.G. McQueen, in {\it High Pressure
847: in Science and Technology,} Eds. C. Homan, R.K. MacCrone and E. Whalley,
848: (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1984), p.\ 137
849: \bibitem{Urlin} V.D. Urlin, Zh.E.T.F. {\bf 49} (1965) 485
850: \bibitem{God} B.K. Godwal, S.K. Sikka and R. Chidambaram, Pramana
851: {\bf 29} (1987) 93. The typo in the value of $T_m(118$ GPa) found
852: by us was communicated with B.K. Godwal.
853: \bibitem{Fe2} C.S. Yoo, N.C. Holmes, M. Ross, D.J. Webb and C. Pike, Phys.
854: Rev. Lett. {\bf 70} (1993) 3931
855: \bibitem{Fe3} J.M. Brown and R.G. McQueen, J. Geophys. Res. {\bf 91} (1986)
856: 7485
857: \bibitem{Fe4} J.D. Bass, in {\it High Pressure Research in Mineral Physics,}
858: Eds. M.H. Manghnani and Y. Syono, (Terra Scientific, Tokyo, 1987), p.\ 393
859: \bibitem{Mo2} R.S. Hixson, D.A. Boness, J.W. Shaner and J.A. Moriarty, Phys.
860: Rev. Lett. {\bf 62} (1989) 637
861: \bibitem{CuAgAu} P.W. Mirwald and G.C. Kennedy, J. Geophys. Res. {\bf 84}
862: (1979) 6750
863: \bibitem{Cu2} A.I. Funtikov, Fiz. Goreniya Vzryva {\bf 5} (1969) 510
864: \bibitem{B'} {\it Rare Gas Solids,} Eds. M.L. Klein and J.A. Venables,
865: (Academic Press, London, 1977), Vol.\ II, Chapter 13
866: \bibitem{Ne} W.L. Vos, J.A. Schouten, D.A. Young and M. Ross, J. Chem. Phys.
867: {\bf 94} (1991) 3835
868: \bibitem{Ar} C.-S. Zha, R. Boehler, D.A. Young and M. Ross, J. Chem. Phys.
869: {\bf 85} (1986) 1034
870: \bibitem{KrXe} P.H. Lahr and W.G. Eversole, J. Chem. Eng. Data {\bf 7} (1962)
871: 42
872: \bibitem{Mg_} G.C. Kennedy and R.C. Newton, in {\it Solids under Pressure,}
873: Eds. W. Paul and D.M. Warschauer, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963), p.\ 163
874: \bibitem{Mg^} P.A. Urtiew and R. Grover, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 48} (1977) 1122
875: \bibitem{KK} N.N. Kalitkin and L.V. Kuz'mina, Sov. Phys. Solid State {\bf 13}
876: (1972) 1938
877: \bibitem{Vinet} P. Vinet, J. Ferrante, J.R. Smith and J.H. Rose, J. Phys. C
878: {\bf 19} (1986) L467 \\
879: P. Vinet, J. Ferrante and J.H. Rose, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35} (1987) 1945
880: \bibitem{CGH} R.E. Cohen, O. G\"{u}lseren and R.J. Hemley, Amer. Mineral.
881: {\bf 85} (2000) 338
882: \bibitem{Birch} F. Birch, J. Geophys. Res. {\bf 57} (1952) 227, {\bf 83}
883: (1978) 1257
884: \bibitem{Ger} L. Gerward, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 46} (1985) 925
885: \bibitem{RMR} Z.-H. Fang and L.-R. Chen, Phys. Stat. Sol. B {\bf 180} (1993) K5
886: \\ S. Raju, E. Mohandas and V.S. Raghunathan, J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 58}
887: (1997) 1367
888: \bibitem{Lin} F.A. Lindemann, Phys. Z. {\bf 11} (1910) 609
889: \bibitem{Klein} H. Kleinert, {\it Gauge Fields in Condensed Matter,}
890: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989), Vol.\ II
891: \end{thebibliography}
892: \end{document}
893: \end
894: