Analytic equations of state (EOS) are intended to reproduce theoretical and experimental data in a single phase portion of the thermodynamic space. We devise a complete and thermodynamically consistent model with four distinct features: (1) a reference isotherm that remains thermodynamically stable, (2) a flexible specific heat model based on a fourth-order rational polynomial, (3) a Grüneisen parameter that depends on specific volume and temperature, and (4) pressure and internal energy functions that can be inverted analytically in temperature. The model aims to improve the accuracy of existing equations of state while remaining computationally efficient. To demonstrate its features, we include calibrations for single-crystal pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), liquid nitromethane (NM), and hexagonal close-packed beryllium (Be) metal. The parameter optimization uses the specific heat capacity, Grüneisen parameter, and static compression curves obtained from density functional theory for the crystalline solids and molecular dynamics simulations for liquid NM. We also present a velocity autocorrelation function that yields accurate phonon densities of states for the EOS calibration from the molecular dynamics trajectories. Each of the three calibrations is constrained to enforce the ambient state from experimental measurements and validated against experimental Hugoniot data from multiple sources. We also include one-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of the isentropic compression experiments for beryllium conducted at the Z facility.

Modeling the response of condensed phase materials at high pressure is central to fields such as aerospace, astrophysics, geophysics, and shock and detonation physics. At the continuum level, the governing partial differential equations describe the dynamics of the system where the closure conditions are provided by constitutive models. It is common in high-pressure physics to ignore the contribution of shear deformations to the free energy.1 Once the yield condition for plastic flow is exceeded, solids begin to behave like fluids and only a thermodynamically consistent equation of state (EOS) is required.2 

Historically, the majority of high-pressure EOS are empirical in nature and rely on limited sets of experimental data to reproduce the relevant physics. Examples of such models include the Davis reactants,3 the linear shock-particle velocity, the Hayes,4 or the Tillotson5 equations of state. Many of these models are of the Mie–Grüneisen type with the full EOS surface based on a reference curve that can be a Hugoniot, an isentrope, or an isotherm. Mie–Grüneisen EOS forms are a simple linear extrapolation off the reference curve. Presuming one samples near the reference curve, an accurate EOS can be attained, but that might not be true in regions far from the reference.

One of the common deficiencies across these models is the use of a reference curve that leads to stability problems under tension.6 Solids and liquids can go into expanded states where the material will eventually fail under certain tensile loading conditions (spallation/cavitation). The EOS must remain qualitatively correct to allow for the dynamic evolution of failure models such as Rajendran–Dietenberger–Grove (RDG)7 or tensile plasticity (TEPLA).8 If the material enters a region where the EOS has unphysical properties—e.g., negative compressibility—the simulation will break down.

A second limitation stems from a lack of thermal data that forces the use of simplifying assumptions—such as a constant specific heat capacity, C V , or a Grüneisen parameter, Γ , that is only a function of the specific volume, V . These approximations are often reasonable for atomic crystals, such as metals, above room temperature.9 If the flow regime is dominated by the compressive pressure, any uncertainties in the value of C V and Γ are usually not critical.10 Conversely, materials like polymers and energetic molecular crystals are characterized by large molecules with many internal degrees of freedom. In the presence of temperature-dependent chemical reactions, the EOS must be able to capture accurately their thermal response.

Winey et al.11 recognized these limitations and developed a thermodynamically consistent equation of state for liquid nitromethane (NM) using analytic expressions for C V , the coefficient of thermal pressure, and the isothermal bulk modulus. They report temperature measurements of NM under stepwise loading conditions using Raman spectroscopy. Despite the relatively large uncertainties ( ± 100  K), they show how simplifying assumptions—such as constant C V or Γ / V —can lead to significant inaccuracies and stress the need for additional temperature measurements.

The lack of experimental data for constraining an EOS parameterization at very high temperatures and compressions can be mitigated through the use of atomic-scale calculations. Provided an accurate description of the binding energy and interatomic forces for a material is available, the contributions to the Helmholtz free energy from the static lattice energy and the phonon densities of states can be computed using standard methodologies.12,13 For crystalline materials, the calculation of the static lattice energy and phonon frequencies for EOS development using density functional theory (DFT)14,15 are both routine and accurate given the availability well-validated, high-performance codes. Example equations of state include the ones developed by Cawkwell et al.16 and Sergeev et al.17 for pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and Cawkwell et al.18 for cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine (HMX).

The calculation of the static lattice energies and vibrational frequencies for systems without long-range order, such as liquids, requires instead molecular dynamics (MD) simulations that typically employ a more approximate description of the interatomic forces than that provided by DFT. Nevertheless, fast semi-empirical, empirical, and machine-learning (ML)-based interatomic potentials and force fields for metals and organic materials are widely available for use in these types of simulations.19,20 Given the availability of high-quality calculated data, there is a need for analytic EOS models that can incorporate these advancements in a computationally efficient manner and remain qualitatively correct outside their calibration domain.

The goal is to derive a complete and thermodynamically consistent equation of state that can accurately reproduce the volumetric and thermal response of a broad class of solids and liquids in a single phase domain. The EOS is constructed from a robust cold curve6 and a thermal model associated with the lattice vibrations, and optionally, the contributions to the free energy from delocalized electrons in metals. Since the EOS is specifically designed to be utilized in hydrodynamic codes, it must be analytically invertible in pressure, specific internal energy, and temperature. Parametric conditions are also proposed to obtain thermodynamic stability and convexity in the phase space region of interest.

In Sec. II, we present the derivation of the equation of state using a Helmholtz free energy formalism. The model properties and relevant functional forms are proposed in Sec. III. The static DFT and MD calculations used to obtain data for the calibrations of single-crystal pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), liquid nitromethane, and hexagonal close-packed (HCP) beryllium metal are described in Sec. IV. Additionally, we discuss the limitations of the Dickey–Paskin velocity autocorrelation function21 for obtaining the phonon DOS and propose an alternative formulation that yields phonon DOS with the appropriate normalization for EOS development. To demonstrate the qualitative features of the EOS, we show calibration examples for PETN, liquid NM, and Be in Sec. V. The three EOS calibrations have been validated against results from high pressure experiments, including single-shock and isentropic compression data, in Sec. VI. Section VII summarizes the main conclusions and the avenues for future work. The supplementary material includes a self-contained section dedicated to code developers interested in the implementation and verification of the equation of state as well as details of the Z compression experiment.

The Helmholtz free energy potential, F ( V , T ) , has temperature, T , and specific volume, V , as natural independent variables. The fundamental thermodynamic identity in terms of such potential is given by
d F = P d V S d T ,
(1)
where P and S are pressure and entropy, respectively. In terms of the Grüneisen parameter, Γ , and the specific heat capacity at constant volume, C V , the entropy satisfies the differential relation
d S = Γ C V V d V + C V T d T .
(2)
Starting from the T 0 isotherm, the entropy is given by
S ( V , T ) = S 0 + V 0 V Γ ( V , T 0 ) C V ( V , T 0 ) V d V + T 0 T C V ( V , T ) T d T .
(3)
After substituting Eq. (3) in Eq. (1) and performing some algebraic manipulations, the free energy can be written as
F ( V , T ) = e 0 T S 0 T 0 T T T T C V ( V , T ) d T V 0 V [ P ( V , T 0 ) + T T 0 V Γ ( V , T 0 ) C V ( V , T 0 ) ] d V .
(4)
As pointed out by Menikoff,22, Γ ( V , T ) is determined by Γ ( V , T 0 ) and C V ( V , T ) in the general case due to the compatibility condition of Sheffield and Duvall,23 
V C V V | T = T Γ C V T | V .
(5)
If the domain extends to T 0 = 0  K where the specific heat is physically required to vanish, the Grüneisen parameter is determined only by C V ( V , T ) and Eq. (4) reduces to
F ( V , T ) = e 0 V 0 V P c ( V ) d V F c ( V ) 0 T T T T C V ( V , T ) d T F th ( V , T ) .
(6)
In Eq. (6), F c ( V ) represents the potential of the static lattice at T = 0  K including the quantum mechanical zero point energy, F th ( V , T ) is the thermal and electronic component of the free energy, and e 0 simply shifts the origin of energy. Therefore, the Helmholtz free energy from Eq. (6) is completely determined by e 0 , the cold curve, P c ( V ) , and the specific heat, C V ( V , T ) , models.
The cold curve model, P c ( V ) , in Eq. (6) uses the MACAW reference curve6 to represent the T = 0  K isotherm
P c ( V ) = A η ( B + 1 ) exp ( 2 3 C ( 1 η 3 2 ) ) × ( C η 3 2 + B ) A ( B + C ) .
(7)
where η = V / V 0 is the expansion ratio; V 0 is the reference specific volume; and A , B , and C are non-negative fitting parameters. These parameters are related directly to the isothermal bulk modulus, K T , and its pressure derivative, K T , at the reference and infinite pressure states.6 Equation (7) leads to the following expression for the isothermal bulk modulus:
K c ( V ) = A η ( B + 1 ) exp ( 2 3 C ( 1 η 3 2 ) ) × [ ( C η 3 2 + B ) 2 ( 1 2 C η 3 2 B ) ] .
(8)
The cold curve model results in a concave-downwards K T P relation that satisfies the linearity condition at infinite pressures.24 In contrast to commonly used isotherms, such as the third-order Birch–Murnaghan25 or the Rose–Vinet,26 the isothermal bulk modulus from Eq. (8) remains positive in all volume space avoiding thermodynamic and numerical stability issues in hydrodynamic simulations.6 The free energy term associated with the potential of the static lattice and the zero point energy can be obtained in closed form from Eq. (7),
F c ( V ) = e 0 + A V 0 [ η B exp ( 2 3 C [ 1 η 3 2 ] ) + η ( B + C ) ( B + C + 1 ) ] .
(9)
The thermal model is completely defined by the specific heat capacity at constant volume. We seek three basic properties during the model design stage: (1) an appropriate asymptotic behavior of C V at the low and high temperature limits, (2) a Grüneisen parameter Γ that depends on both V and T , (3) and a pressure, P , and internal energy, e , that are analytically invertible in temperature. Based on these requisites, we construct the following functional form for the specific heat using a fourth-order rational polynomial:
C V ( V , τ ) = C V τ 4 + 4 τ 3 + a ( V ) τ ( τ + 1 ) 4 ,
(10)
where C V is the asymptotic value at infinite temperature, τ = T / θ ( V ) , and θ ( V ) represents a volume-dependent temperature scale. The coefficient a ( V ) multiplying the linear term in the numerator must be non-negative and becomes a function of the specific volume in the general case. A Taylor series expansion of Eq. (10) unveils the asymptotic properties at the low and high temperature limits,
C V ( V , τ ) { C V ( a τ 4 a τ 2 + ( 4 + 10 a ) τ 3 ) , τ 0 , C V ( 1 6 / τ 2 ) , τ .
(11)
At high temperatures, the specific heat approaches C V as 1 / T 2 similar to the Debye approximation (see Menikoff2). For insulator-type solids, C V can be set to recover the Dulong–Petit limit while a larger value is expected for metals due to the contributions from their delocalized electrons.27,28 For the low temperature asymptotics, the leading term is linear in T except when a ( V ) vanishes and the Debye-like T 3 term dominates. Figure 1 depicts the normalized specific heat model, C V / C V , in Eq. (10) using different a values. The model remains a strictly monotonic function of τ for 0 a < 16 / 3 . The asymptotic behavior given in Eq. (11) is due to matching the cubic term in the numerator and denominator of the polynomial functions. Such choice also enables the analytic inversion of the internal energy and the pressure functions in terms of the temperature (Sec. III A).
FIG. 1.

Normalized specific heat model in Eq. (10) for different a values.

FIG. 1.

Normalized specific heat model in Eq. (10) for different a values.

Close modal
The Helmholtz free energy term associated with the lattice vibrations and delocalized electrons is obtained in closed form from the second integral in Eq. (6),
F th ( V , T ) = C V ( T + θ ) 2 [ ( a 3 3 2 ) T 3 + ( a θ 2 θ ) T 2 ] C V T ln ( 1 + T θ ) ,
(12)
where the volume dependence of θ ( V ) and a ( V ) will be implicitly assumed hereafter. Functional forms for each are derived in Sec. III C using the properties of the Grüneisen parameter.
The fluid flow equations require solving for the thermodynamic pressure, P ( ρ , e ) , with the fluid density, ρ = 1 / V , and internal energy, e , as independent variables. Computational efficiency is paramount in hydrodynamic simulations, thus we require the internal energy to be analytically invertible in temperature. The current model possesses such a property due to the functional form chosen for the specific heat in Eq. (10). Since we require Nernst’s theorem to hold with S 0 = 0  kJ g 1  K 1 , the cold curve is both an isotherm and an isentrope. The specific heat vanishes at T 0 = 0  K and the entropy from Eq. (3) is given by
S ( V , T ) = C V 2 ( T + θ ) 3 [ T 3 + 5 θ T 2 + 2 θ 2 T + 2 3 a θ 3 ] + C V [ ln ( 1 + T θ ) + a 3 ] .
(13)
The specific internal energy can be obtained directly from e = F + T S , which yields
e ( V , T ) = F c ( V ) + C V ( T + θ ) 3 [ T 4 + a θ 6 T 3 + a θ 2 2 T 2 ] .
(14)
Dividing the left and right hand sides of Eq. (14) by θ 4 and rearranging leads to the following quartic equation in τ = T / θ :
τ 4 + ( a 6 e ~ th ) τ 3 + ( a 2 3 e ~ th ) τ 2 3 e ~ th τ e ~ th = 0 ,
(15)
where the dimensionless thermal component of the internal energy is expressed as
e ~ th ( V , e ) = e F c ( V ) C V θ ( V ) .
(16)
Given a state defined by V and e , the temperature, T , can be computed analytically from Eq. (15) and (16). The steps to obtain the physically-relevant τ root from a general quartic equation are summarized in  Appendix A and in the supplementary material. Once the temperature is known, the rest of the thermodynamic quantities can be obtained from V and T .
It is also a common practice in hydrodynamic simulations to define the fluid state in terms of its primitive variables—namely, density, ρ , pressure, P , and particle velocity, u . Therefore, we must have the ability to analytically compute the temperature from ρ and P as well. The thermodynamic pressure corresponds to the negative partial derivative of the free energy with respect to V , which yields
P ( V , T ) = P c ( V ) + C V ( T + θ ) 3 ( q 0 T 4 + q 1 T 3 + q 2 T 2 ) ,
(17)
where
q 0 = 1 3 d a d V 1 θ d θ d V ,
(18a)
q 1 = 5 θ 6 d a d V a 6 d θ d V ,
(18b)
q 2 = θ 2 2 d a d V a θ 2 d θ d V .
(18c)
Each q j term for j = 0 , 1 , 2 is a function of V only and has units of kg , : K j m 1 . After some algebraic manipulations, Eq. (17) can be written as a quartic equation in τ = T / θ ,
q 0 τ 4 + ( q 1 θ P ~ th ) τ 3 + ( q 2 θ 2 3 P ~ th ) τ 2 3 P ~ th τ P ~ th = 0 ,
(19)
where the dimensionless thermal pressure per unit volume is expressed as
P ~ th ( P , V ) = P P c ( V ) C V θ ( V ) .
(20)
Given a state defined by P and V , the temperature, T , can be obtained directly from Eq. (19) and (20) following the steps given in  Appendix A.
The Grüneisen parameter, Γ ( V , T ) , quantifies the relation between the thermal and elastic properties of a solid.1 It can be interpreted as the variation of pressure with thermal energy per unit volume of a material held a constant volume.29 It measures the spacing of the isentropes in the log P log V plane and their negative slope in the log T log V plane.9 Since the model in Sec. II uses the T 0 = 0  K isotherm as reference and C V ( V , T 0 ) = 0 , the compatibility condition in Eq. (5) indicates that Grüneisen parameter is solely determined by C V ,
Γ ( V , T ) = V C V ( V , T ) V 0 T C V ( V , T ) T d T .
(21)
Substituting C V ( V , T ) from Eq. (10) yields
Γ ( V , T ) = T 3 + 4 θ T 2 + 6 θ 2 T + 3 θ 3 T 3 + 4 θ T 2 + a θ 3 V 3 d a d V V θ d θ d V .
(22)
The temperature dependence of Γ ( V , T ) is encapsulated in the first term with a single extremum in T located at T / θ a / 4 . For T / θ a / 4 , Γ increases with increasing T if d a / d V < 0 and decreases with increasing T if d a / d V > 0 . If a ( V ) were to be constant ( d a / d V = 0 ), the specific heat becomes a function of T / θ only and the resulting Grüneisen parameter would be a function of V but not T . The model then reduces to a Mie–Grüneisen equation of state with the cold curve as reference. Such reduction is often useful for modeling atomic crystals above room temperature.2 
As shown in Eq. (22), the temperature scale, θ ( V ) , the linear coefficient, a ( V ) , and their derivatives, d θ / d V and d a / d V , define the mathematical properties of Γ ( V , T ) . At the high temperature limit, the Grüneisen parameter becomes a function of volume only,
Γ ( V ) | T = V 3 d a d V V θ d θ d V Γ mg V q 0 ,
(23)
which can be utilized to devise functional forms for θ ( V ) and a ( V ) . We label the second term in Eq. (23) as Γ mg as it corresponds to the limiting case of a Mie–Grüneisen model. For a = const . , we seek a function that varies monotonically in V from a constant Γ at infinite compression to Γ 0 at infinite expansion. A simple functional form that satisfies this requirement is
Γ mg ( V ) = Γ 0 + Γ Γ 0 1 + ( V / V ) m ,
(24)
where V and m are real positive adjustable parameters, and Γ and Γ 0 can be set to the appropriate limits for that material. Replacing the left-hand side of Eq. (23) with Eq. (24) and solving the differential equation with d a / d V = 0 yields
θ ( V ) = θ 0 ( V V ) Γ 0 [ ( V V ) m + 1 ] Γ Γ 0 m .
(25)
This temperature scale model decreases monotonically with volume down to zero except for the special case with Γ 0 = 0 where the limit becomes θ 0  K.
If the model probes a larger volume region, most materials display a Γ that does not vary monotonically with volume but instead displays a local maximum. We propose the following functional form for the volume-dependent linear coefficient:
a ( V ) = a 0 1 + ( V / V ) n ,
(26)
where a 0 and n are real-valued adjustable parameters with a 0 being non-negative. The role of Eqs. (25) and (26) in shaping Γ ( V ) | T can be better understood from Fig. 2, where ρ ^ = V / ( V + V ) is used as the independent variable along the abscissa. The exponent m controls the slope of the Γ mg term while n can be used to adjust the width of the bump term. Using ρ ^ has the advantage of displaying all volume space for ρ ^ [ 0 , 1 ] where ρ ^ = 0 indicates infinite expansion, ρ ^ = 1 indicates infinite compression, and ρ ^ = 1 / 2 corresponds to V = V . Expressions for the first and second derivatives of a ( V ) and θ ( V ) are provided in  Appendix B and the supplementary material.
FIG. 2.

Schematic representation of the Grüneisen parameter as T using the θ ( V ) and a ( V ) models with n > 0 .

FIG. 2.

Schematic representation of the Grüneisen parameter as T using the θ ( V ) and a ( V ) models with n > 0 .

Close modal

The functional forms in Eq. (25) and (26) with n 0 guarantee that Γ ( V , T ) 0 in all phase space. If n < 0 , a separate check should be conducted to verify that Γ takes the appropriate values in the V T regions of interest. In Secs. III D and III E, we use thermodynamic stability and convexity at the infinite temperature limit to derive analytic constraints for the fitting parameters.

The EOS model must remain thermodynamically stable to prevent any unphysical behavior in the regions of interest. This places nontrivial monotonicity and convexity constraints on the Helmholtz free energy surface. Menikoff2 summarizes the conditions for thermodynamic stability in terms of the specific heat capacities and bulk moduli,
C P C V 0 ,
(27a)
K S K T 0.
(27b)
Thermodynamic identities give the relation
K S K T = C P C V = 1 + Γ 2 T C V V K T ,
(28)
where K S and K T represent the isentropic and isothermal bulk moduli, respectively. Given that both C V and Γ 2 are non-negative by construction, our EOS model will be thermodynamically stable if and only if K T 0 in the V T region of interest. The isothermal bulk modulus can be derived directly from Eq. (17),
K T ( V , T ) = K c ( V ) + 3 P th V T + θ d θ d V V C V ( T + θ ) 3 [ d q 0 d V T 4 + d q 1 d V T 3 + d q 2 d V T 2 ] ,
(29)
where the thermal pressure is simply P th = P ( V , T ) P c ( V ) , and the q j derivatives are given by
d q 0 d V = 1 3 d 2 a d V 2 + ( 1 θ d θ d V ) 2 1 θ d 2 θ d V 2 ,
(30a)
d q 1 d V = 5 θ 6 d 2 a d V 2 + 2 3 d a d V d θ d V a 6 d 2 θ d V 2 ,
(30b)
d q 2 d V = θ 2 2 d 2 a d V 2 + θ 2 d a d V d θ d V a 2 ( d θ d V ) 2 a θ 2 d 2 θ d V 2 .
(30c)
In the calibration step, it is useful to provide bounds for the fitting parameters in Eqs. (25) and (26) to prevent large regions where the equation of state becomes thermodynamically unstable. We begin by expressing the isothermal bulk modulus in Eq. (29) as K T = K c ( V ) + K th ( V , T ) , where K c and K th are associated with the cold and thermal components, respectively. The K c term is guaranteed to be positive from Eq. (8) but K th is not and will dominate over K c at high temperatures and at large volumes. We use the high temperature limit to obtain analytic constraints for the m and n exponents that can be enforced during the global optimization step. Expanding K th in dominant terms as T , we attain the condition d q 0 / d V 0 , which can be expressed as the following relation:
1 θ d 2 θ d V 2 ( 1 θ d θ d V ) 2 1 3 d 2 a d V 2 .
(31)
The inequality in Eq. (31) is a necessary but generally not sufficient condition to guarantee thermodynamic stability in all V T space. Despite its simplicity, it is non-trivial to devise general constraints for the fitting parameters in Eq. (25) and (26). However, we can make certain deductions for two special cases of interest: (1) atomic crystals above room temperature with a const . and (2) large molecules with many internal degrees of freedom where Γ 0 0 .

1. Atomic crystals with a = const.

For atomic crystals such as metals, the Grüneisen parameter often displays a weak temperature dependency and it is reasonable to set n = 0 in Eq. (26). In this case, the right hand side of Eq. (31) vanishes leading to an algebraic constraint for the m exponent in terms of the asymptotic limits of Γ :
0 < m Γ + Γ 0 + 2 Γ Γ 0 max ( 0 , Γ 0 Γ ) for n = 0.
(32)
Note that there is no finite upper bound for m if Γ Γ 0 since the denominator goes to zero.

2. Molecular crystals with Γ0 = 0

For a molecular crystal at low density, the intramolecular vibrational modes become approximately independent of the system volume. If we tie Γ 0 to the ideal gas limit, the classical equipartition theorem relates this parameter to the thermally accessible degrees of freedom. For a polyatomic molecule with N vib vibrational modes, Γ 0 = 4 + N vib 3 + N vib 1 , thus Γ 0 becomes small for large molecules at high temperatures. In the limiting case of Γ 0 0 , we can obtain a separate algebraic constraint for m ,
0 < m 1 + 3 Γ a 0 + 2 6 Γ a 0 for n m , Γ 0 = 0.
(33)
If a 0 = 0 , there is no finite upper bound for m , which is consistent with Eq. (32) when Γ Γ 0 .

The bounds in Eqs. (32) and (33) become useful during the EOS calibration but care must be taken to ensure thermodynamic stability in the V T range of interest for the general case. Section V shows a calibration example where K T < 0 along the principal isentrope despite satisfying the inequality in Eq. (37). This is generally the case when Γ 0 O ( 1 ) and indicates a deficiency of the model.

Another important property of an equation of state surface comes from the convexity of its isentropes in the P V plane. Such a property is encapsulated in the sign of the fundamental derivative,30,
G = 1 2 V 2 P / V 2 | S P / V | S 1 2 ( K S + 1 ) ,
(34)
where K S represents the pressure derivative of the isentropic bulk modulus. We can write K S as
K S = 1 K S ( Γ T K S T | V V K S V | T )
(35)
and K S can be determined from Eq. (28). An equation of state is convex when G > 0 , which dictates the compressive and expansive nature of shocks and rarefaction waves, respectively.9 This is the expected wave behavior of most materials except in the vicinity of phase transitions.31 Similar to the analysis in Sec. III D, we seek analytic constraints based on the convexity of our EOS model as T . From Eqs. (28) and (29) and Γ | T V q 0 , we can write the following expansion at high temperatures:
K S ( V , T ) V C V ( q 0 2 d q 0 d V ) T as T .
(36)
Using Eq. (35) in the G definition and assuming that Eq. (27b) is satisfied, we obtain the following relation:
d 2 q 0 d V 2 3 q 0 d q 0 d V + q 0 3 > 0 ,
which expands to
1 3 d 3 a d V 3 1 3 d a d V d 2 a d V 2 + ( 1 3 d a d V ) 3 + 1 θ d 2 θ d V 2 d a d V + 1 θ d θ d V [ d 2 a d V 2 1 3 ( d a d V ) 2 ] 1 θ d 3 θ d V 3 > 0.
(37)
The inequality in Eq. (37) is a necessary condition to ensure the convexity of the isentropes in all P V space. It is not possible to derive explicit analytic constraints for the fitting parameters that satisfy Eq. (37) except for the special case of a = const . However, the inequality can always be evaluated a posteriori to determine the properties of a particular calibration.

1. Atomic crystals with a = const.

For this special case, the fundamental derivative at large temperatures approaches
G ( V ) | T = V 2 d 3 θ / d V 3 d 2 θ / d V 2 for a = const .
(38)
From Eq. (37), it can be shown that Eq. (38) is positive in all V space if and only if θ > 0 and d 3 θ / d V 3 < 0 . The positivity of θ ( V ) is satisfied by construction, thus we seek m = m ( Γ 0 , Γ ) such that the third derivative of θ is negative for all V . This condition can be reduced to an implicit function Δ = Δ ( m , Γ 0 , Γ ) that corresponds to the discriminant of a cubic equation,
Δ = 18 u 0 u 1 u 2 u 3 4 u 2 3 u 0 + u 2 2 u 1 2 4 u 3 u 1 3 27 u 3 2 u 0 2 ,
(39)
where
u 0 = Γ ( Γ + 2 ) ( Γ + 1 ) ,
(40a)
u 1 = Γ ( m + 1 ) ( m 3 Γ 4 ) Γ 0 ( 3 Γ ( Γ + 2 ) 3 m ( Γ + 1 ) + m 2 + 2 ) ,
(40b)
u 2 = Γ 0 ( m 1 ) ( m + 3 Γ 0 + 4 ) Γ ( 3 Γ 0 ( Γ 0 + 2 ) + 3 m ( Γ 0 + 1 ) + m 2 + 2 ) ,
(40c)
u 3 = Γ 0 ( Γ 0 + 2 ) ( Γ 0 + 1 ) .
(40d)
Figure 3 shows the limiting value of m ( Γ 0 , Γ ) where d 3 θ / d V 3 has no positive real roots. The shaded region indicates the ( Γ 0 , Γ ) points where thermodynamic stability from Eq. (32) imposes a more restrictive bound on m than convexity as T . Once again, Δ < 0 is not a sufficient condition to guarantee the EOS convexity in all phase space and should only be used to provide appropriate bounds during the optimization step. Positivity of the fundamental derivative needs to be evaluated for each particular calibration to avoid unexpected wave behavior. Section V C shows a simple change of variables that can be used to identify any problematic regions.
FIG. 3.

Limiting contours of m (blue) as function of Γ 0 and Γ that satisfy the infinite-temperature convexity condition for the special case of a = const . The shaded region (red) indicates where the thermodynamic stability constraint in Eq. (32) is more restrictive.

FIG. 3.

Limiting contours of m (blue) as function of Γ 0 and Γ that satisfy the infinite-temperature convexity condition for the special case of a = const . The shaded region (red) indicates where the thermodynamic stability constraint in Eq. (32) is more restrictive.

Close modal
Given a description of the binding energy and interatomic forces for a material, the static lattice energy and the dependence of the vibrational normal modes or phonon DOS on specific volume can be used to parameterize the first two terms in the Helmholtz free energy,13,
F ( V , T ) = F st ( V ) + F ion ( V , T ) + F el ( V , T ) ,
(41)
where F st is the static lattice energy, F ion is the ion motion free energy, and F el is the electronic excitation free energy.32 The latter is ignored for both single-crystal PETN and liquid nitromethane because both are excellent electrical insulators.

Under ambient conditions, PETN (C 5 H 8 N 4 O 12 ) adopts a tetragonal unit cell with space group P 4 ¯ 2 1 c containing two molecules.33 The static compression curve for hydrostatic pressures less than 10 GPa was constructed from the room temperature isothermal compression data measured by Olinger, Cady, and Halleck.34 The DFT calculations used to extend the static compression curve to pressures in excess of 10 GPa and to compute the dependence of the vibrational normal modes on specific volume were described in detail in two earlier publications,16,35 but here we provide a concise summary for completeness. All of the DFT calculations for PETN were performed using the Gaussian and Plane Waves (GPW) method in the CP2k code36 with the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) exchange-correlation functional of Perdew, Burke, and Ernzerhof (PBE),37 the double zeta with polarization (DZVP) basis set, Goedecker–Teter–Hutter pseudopotentials,38 and the D3(BJ) dispersion correction.39 The plane wave and relative cut-off energies were set to 1200 and 60 Ry, respectively. The high pressure portion was calculated in a single unit cell under periodic boundary conditions with a 2 × 2 × 3 Monkhorst–Pack k-point mesh.40 The phonon frequencies were calculated using a brute force (that is, without utilizing crystal symmetry) algorithm to build the force constant matrix via finite displacements of the atoms in a 2 × 2 × 2 periodic supercell with a single k-point. The normal modes were calculated over compressions 1 V / V 0 0.6 .

The static compression curve was generated from the room temperature isothermal compression data and high pressure DFT results after subtracting the room temperature thermal pressure. This was accomplished by computing the dependence of the vibrational contribution to the Helmholtz free energy, F ion ( V , T ) , on specific volume at T = 298  K using the set of DFT-calculated normal mode frequencies, { f } , where
F ion ( V , T ) = i = 1 3 ( N 1 ) 1 2 h f i ( V ) + k B T i = 1 3 ( N 1 ) ln ( 1 exp ( h f i ( V ) k B T ) ) ,
(42)
h is the Planck constant, k B the Boltzmann constant, and N the number of atoms in the supercell. Near room temperature, we found that F ion depends linearly on density over the set of compression ratios considered here. The static compression data for parameterizing the PETN EOS is simply the set of specific volume vs pressure points measured experimentally or obtained from DFT, corrected by the corresponding pressure term P ion = d F ion / d V evaluated at room temperature.

The static lattice energy and dependencies of the vibrational normal modes on compression of liquid NM (CH 3 NO 2 ) were computed using MD simulations rather than the static DFT methods because (i) the traditional force-constant matrix approach is ill-suited to liquids and (ii) the absence of long range order would make any DFT calculations prohibitively expensive. The MD simulations were performed using the LATTE quantum-MD code41 that represents the interatomic forces using semi-empirical density functional tight binding (DFTB) theory.42,43 We used the lanl31 parameter set44 for molecules and materials containing C, H, N, and O with the empirical dispersion correction described in Ref. 45 to improve the description of non-bonded interactions between molecules. All of the MD simulations used a time step for the integration of the equation of motion of 0.25 fs. The extended Lagrangian Born–Oppenheimer MD formalism for the propagation of the electronic degrees of freedom during DFTB-MD allowed us to use only one self-consistent field update per MD time step for the calculation of the set of Mulliken partial charges while maintaining no systematic drift in the total energy.46,47 The DFTB density matrix was computed using O ( N 3 ) matrix diagonalization at zero electronic temperature.

The MD simulations used to calculate the static lattice energy and vibrational modes were performed in cubic simulation cells that contained 80 NM molecules (560 atoms) under three dimensional periodic boundary conditions. The initial atomic configuration was generated by placing NM molecules in the simulation cell at random positions, while avoiding close approaches and overlaps. The dimensions of this supercell were determined by requiring an initial density of 1.14 g cm 3 . This configuration was then thermalized at 500 K and constant volume using a Langevin thermostat48 for 50 000 time steps to ensure a disordered, liquid-like state was achieved. The volumetric response of liquid NM was examined by generating a series of 61 supercells with compressions 1.05 V / V 0 0.45 by uniformly scaling internal coordinates and lattice vectors of the thermalized, ambient density configuration. Following a short geometry optimization to eliminate any highly distorted covalent bonds, MD trajectories were computed for each system in the canonical ensemble at 298 K using a Langevin thermostat. Information from the first 50 000 time steps from each trajectory was discarded. The time histories of the pressure and atomic velocities was recorded for post-processing from the subsequent 100 000 time steps.

The time average of the instantaneous pressures from the set of MD trajectories yields a 298 K isothermal compression curve up to V / V 0 = 0.45 . A least-squares fit of Eq. (7) yields an equilibrium density of 1.18 g cm 3 , which is slightly higher than the reported experimental values.49 The static compression curve is generated from the 298 K isotherm by removing the contribution to the pressure from F ion ( V , T ) .

To compute F ion for a liquid, we must replace the summations over sets of discrete normal mode frequencies as in Eq. (42) by integrals over the continuous phonon DOS, g ( f ( V ) ) obtained at specific volume, V ,
F ion ( V , T ) = h 2 0 f g ( f ( V ) ) d f + k B T 0 ln ( 1 e h f k B T ) g ( f ( V ) ) d f .
(43)
It is important that g ( f ( V ) ) are normalized appropriately, that is,
0 g ( f ) d f = N mode ,
(44)
where N mode is the total number of vibrational modes in the system. For an MD simulation containing N particles, N mode = 3 N . Vibrational frequencies are extracted routinely from an MD trajectory by the cosine or Fourier transform of the velocity autocorrelation function, γ ( t ) , where t denotes time. The velocity autocorrelation function was defined by Dickey and Paskin21 as
γ ( t ) = ( 1 / N ) i = 1 N v i ( 0 ) v i ( t ) ( 1 / N ) i = 1 N v i ( 0 ) v i ( 0 ) ,
(45)
where v i ( t ) is the velocity of atom i at time step t and denotes an ensemble average over all time origins. The normalization factor, v i ( 0 ) v i ( 0 ) , used in Eq. (45) assures that γ ( t ) = 1 at t = 0 and that it decays to zero at large time. However, while many authors assume that transforming γ ( t ) as written in Eq. (45) into the frequency domain yields a phonon DOS (see, for example, Refs. 50–52), we find that this is not generally true. While the total DOS can be normalized to satisfy Eq. (44), integrating over individual peaks does not return the number of vibrational modes that are physically associated with those frequencies according to the number and types of bonds present in the molecule. We illustrate the shortcomings in the original Dickey and Paskin form of γ ( t ) below and propose an alternative form for γ ( t ) whose transform to the frequency domain yields a phonon DOS with the appropriate properties under integration.

We start by computing the normal mode frequencies of the nitromethane molecule in the gas phase using the dynamical matrix approach with the lanl31 DFTB model. The frequencies of the 21 normal modes are reported in Table I together with values derived from a DFT calculation at the B3LYP/cc-pVTZ level of theory53 and experiment.54 These results show that the lanl31 DFTB model yields normal mode frequencies that are in excellent agreement with experiment and more computationally expensive DFT calculations. These results also highlight that the frequencies and their groupings or degeneracies are connected to the bonding and structure of the molecule. For instance, we observe that the first six modes have imaginary frequencies in the gas phase—these correspond to trivial translations and rotations of the NM molecule. There are three modes with frequencies > 3000 c m 1 that correspond to the three C–H stretches in CH 3 NO 2 . The single C–N stretch corresponds to the mode at about 920 c m 1 . Indeed, all of the normal modes can be assigned to specific harmonic distortions of the NM molecule.54 It is imperative for parameterization of the F ion term in the EOS that the phonon DOS captures accurately not only the frequencies of the normal modes but also their degeneracies based on the structure and symmetry of the molecule.

TABLE I.

Gas-phase normal mode frequencies of NM calculated using the lanl31 DFTB parameterization, DFT at the B3LYP/cc-pVTZ level, and from infrared spectroscopy.

Frequency (cm−1)
Mode ID B3LYP/cc-pVTZ53  lanl31 Experiment54 
1-6  …  …  … 
10  1.8  … 
481  459  475 
616  571  603 
10  663  626  657 
11  926  850  918 
12  1110  1136  1096 
13  1137  1137  1131 
14  1400  1357  1380 
15  1428  1415  1397 
16  1465  1418  1410 
17  1478  1444  1434 
18  1633  1693  1583 
19  3077  3189  2974 
20  3164  3277  3045 
21  3197  3302  3080 
Frequency (cm−1)
Mode ID B3LYP/cc-pVTZ53  lanl31 Experiment54 
1-6  …  …  … 
10  1.8  … 
481  459  475 
616  571  603 
10  663  626  657 
11  926  850  918 
12  1110  1136  1096 
13  1137  1137  1131 
14  1400  1357  1380 
15  1428  1415  1397 
16  1465  1418  1410 
17  1478  1444  1434 
18  1633  1693  1583 
19  3077  3189  2974 
20  3164  3277  3045 
21  3197  3302  3080 

The cosine transform of Eq. (45) for the condensed-phase MD trajectory computed for the system with density 1.14 g c m 3 is presented in Fig. 4. For clarity, the result has been normalized using Eq. (44) such that N mode = 21 . The frequencies associated with each peak in the Fig. 4 correspond clearly to those reported in Table I. However, upon integrating this spectrum, which is presented in Fig. 4, we observe that the number of modes associated with each peak is not in accord with the results in presented in Table I. For instance, we observe about six rather than three C–H stretches and four rather than seven modes at very low frequencies. Hence, the cosine transform of Eq. (45) does not correspond to a phonon DOS.

FIG. 4.

Phonon DOS (left) and integrated phonon DOS (right) derived from the cosine transforms of the Dickey and Paskin Eq. (45) and alternate Eq. (46) forms of the velocity autocorrelation function, γ ( t ) , for liquid NM at ρ = 1.14  g cm 3 and T = 298  K.

FIG. 4.

Phonon DOS (left) and integrated phonon DOS (right) derived from the cosine transforms of the Dickey and Paskin Eq. (45) and alternate Eq. (46) forms of the velocity autocorrelation function, γ ( t ) , for liquid NM at ρ = 1.14  g cm 3 and T = 298  K.

Close modal
An accurate phonon DOS can be obtained from the set of atomic velocities by defining the velocity autocorrelation function as
γ ( t ) = 1 N i = 1 N v i ( 0 ) v i ( t ) v i ( 0 ) v i ( 0 ) ,
(46)
which normalizes the autocorrelation function differently to Eq. (45) but still ensures that γ ( t ) = 1 at t = 0 and that it decays to zero for large t . The cosine transform of Eq. (46) is presented in Fig. 4 for the same condensed phase MD trajectory and with the same total normalization, N mode = 21 . Figure 4 shows that both expressions for γ ( t ) yield the same sets of normal mode frequencies, that is, the peak positions are unchanged, but that the peak heights vary significantly. The integration of the alternative form of the phonon DOS, which is presented in Fig. 4, shows the number of modes associated with each peak is fully consistent with the set of normal mode frequencies presented in Table I. For instance, the first peak in the DOS corresponds to the seven low-frequency modes (three simple translations, three simple rotations, and one low frequency intramolecular distortion at about 10 c m 1 ). Furthermore, the peak at > 3000 c m 1 clearly corresponds to the three C–H stretches associated with NM. All of the increments in the plot of the integrated DOS can be attributed unambiguously to the normal mode frequencies listed in Table I. Hence, the alternate form of the velocity autocorrelation function, Eq. (46), yields a phonon DOS with the normalization appropriate for EOS development.

The phonon DOS, g ( f ( V ) ) , for liquid NM obtained using Eq. (46) from our series of DFTB-MD trajectories over the compression ratios 1.05 V / V 0 0.45 are presented in Fig. 5. The set of DOS show the shift and broadening of the low frequency peak associated with the harmonic motion of the NM molecules as well as the mode-specific positive shifts in the frequencies of the intramolecular vibrational modes as compression is increased.

FIG. 5.

Phonon DOS of liquid NM from DFTB-MD for compressions 1.05 V / V 0 0.45 . The DOS are shifted in Δ g = 0.01 increments for clarity, with compression increasing from bottom (blue) to top (red).

FIG. 5.

Phonon DOS of liquid NM from DFTB-MD for compressions 1.05 V / V 0 0.45 . The DOS are shifted in Δ g = 0.01 increments for clarity, with compression increasing from bottom (blue) to top (red).

Close modal

The static lattice energy and phonon DOS of HCP Be were calculated using the plane wave DFT code VASP.55–58 All calculations used the PBE exchange-correlation functional, a plane wave cut-off energy of 400 eV with the PREC=ACCURATE setting, and the projector augmented wave pseudopotential for Be.59,60 The occupancies in the vicinity of the Fermi energy were smeared using the Methfessel–Paxton method with a 0.2 eV smearing width.61 The static compression curve was obtained by performing a series of lattice parameter optimizations under hydrostatic stresses between 20 and 240 GPa with a 30 × 30 × 20 Γ -centered Monkhorst–Pack k-point mesh. The lattice parameters predicted by the static DFT calculations at zero pressure, a = 2.265  Å, c = 3.564  Å, and c / a = 1.573 are slightly smaller than experimental measurements at room temperature, a = 2.287  Å, c = 3.583  Å, and c / a = 1.567 .62 These results were encouraging because they imply that in the case of Be, the calculated static lattice energy is close to the true one and that a correction by the thermal pressure is not required.

The phonon DOS, g ( f ( V ) ) , of HCP Be were calculated via the dynamical matrix method with a 6 × 6 × 6 supercell over compression ratios 0.51 V / V 0 1.0 with a 5 × 5 × 3 k-point mesh and are presented in Fig. 6. These calculations were managed using the phonopy package, which uses the space group symmetry of the crystal to construct the full dynamical matrix from a minimal number of atomic displacements.63 This reduces the computational burden of building the dynamical matrix from O ( N 4 ) for a brute force algorithm to O ( N 3 ) . As compression increases the phonon DOS shift systematically to higher frequencies. The Be pressure-temperature phase diagram shows that HCP Be is thermodynamically stable at low temperature under hydrostatic compression to at least 250 GPa.64 The computed phonon DOS are fully consistent with this result because they exhibit no signs of any soft or imaginary phonon modes, which would indicate a structural instability in the HCP phase, at pressures up to 240 GPa.

FIG. 6.

Phonon DOS of HCP Be calculated using plane wave DFT for 0.51 V / V 0 1.0 . The DOS are shifted vertically in proportion to the density, ρ , of the crystal for clarity, with compression increasing from bottom (blue) to top (red).

FIG. 6.

Phonon DOS of HCP Be calculated using plane wave DFT for 0.51 V / V 0 1.0 . The DOS are shifted vertically in proportion to the density, ρ , of the crystal for clarity, with compression increasing from bottom (blue) to top (red).

Close modal
As in Greeff,65 the electronic contribution to the free energy is approximated by
F el ( V , T ) = 1 2 γ el ( V ) T 2 ,
(47)
where γ el ( V ) is the Sommerfeld coefficient proportional, which is to the electronic density of states at the Fermi energy. The volume dependence of the Sommerfeld coefficient is approximated by γ el ( V ) = γ el , 0 ( V / V ref ) κ , where the values of γ el , 0 and κ are based on electronic structure calculations and V ref is simply a reference volume. We calibrate F el ( V ) to the calculations of Coe et al.,66 which yields γ el , 0 = 2.867 52 × 10 5 J g 1 K 2 , κ = 0.59 , and V ref = 0.539 c m 3 g 1 from the static lattice.

In this section, we describe the global optimization steps for the thermal and cold components of the model, as well as the different features of each calibration.The devised EOS is intended to capture all three terms of the total free energy in Eq. (41) in the single phase V T range of interest. The calibration is conducted in two sequential steps corresponding to the thermal and cold components of the model. To overcome well-known shortcoming of DFT and MD with regard to its ability to accurately predict the ambient-pressure densities of materials, we constrain the ambient state ( P a = 0  GPa, T a = 298  K) during the optimization to match the experimental values of density ρ a , thermal expansion coefficient β a , and Grüneisen parameter Γ a . The values and references for each thermodynamic property are included in Table II. Note that we use the subscript “ a ” to refer to the ambient state—as opposed to the more common “ 0 ”—to avoid confusion with the reference state at T 0 = 0  K.

TABLE II.

Experimental ambient state values for density, thermal expansion coefficient, and Grüneisen parameter.

Parameter PETN34,67 Nitromethane49,68 Beryllium69 
ρa (g cm-3 1.774  1.131  1.842 
βa (K−1 23.2 × 10−5  12.2 × 10−4  34.5 × 10−6 
Γa (−)  1.07  1.22  1.20 
Parameter PETN34,67 Nitromethane49,68 Beryllium69 
ρa (g cm-3 1.774  1.131  1.842 
βa (K−1 23.2 × 10−5  12.2 × 10−4  34.5 × 10−6 
Γa (−)  1.07  1.22  1.20 
For the thermal component, Eq. (12) needs to capture the free energy contribution from [ F ion ( V , T ) F zpe ( V ) ] + F el ( V , T ) , where the zero point energy F zpe is included under the cold component. Rather than calibrating the free energy surface directly, a more constraining approach is to fit thermodynamic quantities associated with its second derivatives. For PETN and nitromethane, we fit the normalized specific heat surface computed from the DFT and MD results and the quasi-harmonic approximation to the model in Eq. (10) with θ ( V ) and a ( V ) given by Eqs. (25) and (26), respectively. The EOS parameters that represent asymptotic limits, namely, C V , Γ 0 , and Γ , are manually set to their appropriate value while θ 0 , a 0 , V , m , n are allowed to change within their bounds during the optimization. We impose two additional constraints during the optimization: (1) n m and (2) V is determined such that Γ ( V a , T a ) = Γ a is satisfied at each iteration. We apply the same constraints to the beryllium calibration but rather than fitting only the specific heat, we conduct a simultaneous fit to both C ¯ V = C V / C V and Γ ¯ = Γ / Γ max surfaces. This is done to illustrate the ability of the EOS model to capture the low temperature behavior of the Grüneisen parameter for beryllium—as opposed to using a simpler Mie–Grüneisen model, where Γ is a function of V only. The Grüneisen parameter can then be obtained from the thermodynamic relation
Γ ( V , T ) = V C V S V | T .
(48)
From the quasi-harmonic approximation, both C V and S are analytic in temperature but only known at a finite set of discrete V points. To generate a smooth Γ surface, we apply a one-dimensional cubic spline70 to the entropy along each isotherm before evaluating the volume derivative in Eq. (48). The range and spacing of the temperature points used to generate the C V and Γ surfaces can be chosen based on different criteria. For all three materials, we set an upper limit of T max = 2000  K, which approximately corresponds to the Von Neumann spike temperature of detonating PETN and nitromethane, as well as the hexagonal close-packed to body centered cubic (BCC) transition of beryllium at P 250  GPa.66 The lower temperature limit is T min = 0  K for PETN and nitromethane and T min = 50  K for beryllium. The latter is chosen based on where Γ derived from the DFT calculations loses accuracy.

All three calibrations are conducted using the basin-hopping global optimization algorithm of Wales and Doye71 with the implementation included in the LMFIT72 Python package. The fits to the normalized specific heat for (a) single-crystal PETN, (b) liquid nitromethane, and (c) HCP beryllium are shown in the top row of Fig. 7 along with their root-mean-square (RMS) deviation. For beryllium, a similar plot for Γ is given in Fig. 8. The markers for the thermal part indicate the DFT data plotted every 5 points in V and T and the solid lines represent the EOS model. The colormap represents different isochores ranging from low (blue) to high (red) compression ratios. Note that the results are only used to demonstrate the properties of the equation of state model and do not account for any uncertainties in the DFT or the experimental results.

FIG. 7.

Thermal and cold calibration for (a) single-crystal PETN, (b) liquid nitromethane, and (c) HCP beryllium. The top row shows the normalized specific heat C V / C V , where the makers indicate the DFT data plotted every 5 points in V and T and the solid lines represent the EOS model. The color map represents different isochores ranging from low (blue) to high (red) compression ratios. The bottom row shows F st and F zpe from the DFT and the least squares fit to the cold component F c of the EOS model.

FIG. 7.

Thermal and cold calibration for (a) single-crystal PETN, (b) liquid nitromethane, and (c) HCP beryllium. The top row shows the normalized specific heat C V / C V , where the makers indicate the DFT data plotted every 5 points in V and T and the solid lines represent the EOS model. The color map represents different isochores ranging from low (blue) to high (red) compression ratios. The bottom row shows F st and F zpe from the DFT and the least squares fit to the cold component F c of the EOS model.

Close modal
FIG. 8.

Grüneisen parameter calibration for HCP beryllium. The markers indicate the DFT data plotted every 5 points in V and T , and the solid lines represent the EOS model. The color map represents different isochores ranging from low (blue) to high (red) compression ratios.

FIG. 8.

Grüneisen parameter calibration for HCP beryllium. The markers indicate the DFT data plotted every 5 points in V and T , and the solid lines represent the EOS model. The color map represents different isochores ranging from low (blue) to high (red) compression ratios.

Close modal
For the cold component, Eq. (9) accounts for the contributions from the static lattice compression curve P st ( V ) and the zero point energy F zpe ( V ) = 1 2 h f g ( f ) d f . We begin by computing F st ( V ) = P st ( V ) d V using the composite trapezoidal rule. If F st is not given in the same specific volume grid as F zpe , a one-dimensional piecewise quadratic interpolant70 is used to obtain F st + F zpe . The parameters e 0 , V 0 , A , B , and C are then obtained by fitting Eq. (9) to F st + F zpe in a least squares sense. We impose additional constraints on V 0 and A during the optimization such that P ( V a , T a ) = 0 and β ( V a , T a ) = β a from Table II. Imposing such constraints involves solving the following non-linear root-finding problem for each guess of e 0 , B , and C :
{ P c ( V a ) + P th ( V a , T a ) = 0 , K c ( V a ) + K th ( V a , T a ) = C V ( V a , T a ) Γ a β a V a ,
(49)
where the unknowns are V 0 and A . The values of P th , K th , and C V at the ambient state are known from the thermal model previously calibrated. The cold curve fits for each of the materials are shown in the bottom row of Fig. 7 along with their root-mean-square deviation. The parameter values obtained from least squares, e 0 , V 0 , A , B , and C , are summarized in Table III. Note that we choose the energy shift to approximately match e 0 = F zpe ( V 0 ) , where e c F c due to Nernst’s theorem.
TABLE III.

Equation of state calibration parameters for each material.

Parameter PETN Nitromethane Beryllium
Thermal model
C V ( kJ g 1 K 2 ) [fixed 2.2881 × 10−3  2.5700 × 10−3  2.9000 × 10−3 
Γ0 (−) [fixed 1/84  1/18  5/3 
Γ (−)[fixed 2/3  2/3  2/3 
θ0 (K)  218.95  245.59  216.10 
a0 (−)  1.9477  3.7262  9.3365 × 10−2 
V (cm3 g−1 0.437 52   0.613 27   0.477 78  
m (−)  3.1674  1.9108  2.9117 
n (−)  3.1674  1.9108  −5.2451 
  Cold curve 
e0 (kJ g−1 1.5700  1.9709  0.966 22  
V0 (cm3 g−1 0.539 23   0.744 65   0.540 19  
A (GPa)  0.100 54   4.5067 × 10−2  4.6488 
B (−)  0.666 67   1.3189  1.1014 
C (−)  10.466  8.4919  3.9484 
Parameter PETN Nitromethane Beryllium
Thermal model
C V ( kJ g 1 K 2 ) [fixed 2.2881 × 10−3  2.5700 × 10−3  2.9000 × 10−3 
Γ0 (−) [fixed 1/84  1/18  5/3 
Γ (−)[fixed 2/3  2/3  2/3 
θ0 (K)  218.95  245.59  216.10 
a0 (−)  1.9477  3.7262  9.3365 × 10−2 
V (cm3 g−1 0.437 52   0.613 27   0.477 78  
m (−)  3.1674  1.9108  2.9117 
n (−)  3.1674  1.9108  −5.2451 
  Cold curve 
e0 (kJ g−1 1.5700  1.9709  0.966 22  
V0 (cm3 g−1 0.539 23   0.744 65   0.540 19  
A (GPa)  0.100 54   4.5067 × 10−2  4.6488 
B (−)  0.666 67   1.3189  1.1014 
C (−)  10.466  8.4919  3.9484 
The equation of state calibrations in Figs. 7 and 8 show good overall agreement with the results from the DFT and MD calculations. Smaller RMS deviations can be obtained if the experimental ambient state is not enforced but at the potential expense of degrading the accuracy and robustness of the model. It also useful to identify the regions where a particular EOS calibration might become problematic. To be able to visualize the entire physically relevant quadrant ( V > 0 , T 0 ), we employ the following change of variables:
V ^ = V V + V a , T ^ = T T + T a ,
(50)
where V ^ , T ^ [ 0 , 1 ] . That is, V ^ ( V 0 ) = 0 and T ^ ( T 0 ) = 0 , V ^ ( V ) = 1 and T ^ ( T ) = 1 while the ambient state ( V a , T a ) corresponds to ( V ^ a , T ^ a ) = ( 1 / 2 , 1 / 2 ) . This change of variables enables inspecting the thermodynamic quantities of interest and their asymptotic properties—recall that the model is only expected to be accurate in a single phase domain.

As shown in Fig. 9, one of the main improvements of the present EOS is having a Grüneisen parameter that can vary with both temperature and volume. We use the wireframe in Fig. 9 to indicate the V T range where atomistic calculations were used to calibrate the thermal component of the model. For the case of beryllium with n < 0 , the Grüneisen parameter is mostly a function of volume except below room temperature where it decreases. Figure 10 shows that Γ becomes negative at sufficiently low temperatures ( T 30  K), which can lead to an anomalous wave behavior. Thermodynamics places no constraints on the sign of the Grüneisen parameter but Γ < 0 —thus β < 0 —physically implies that the material contracts upon heating at constant pressure. The entropy surface becomes multivalued in the P V plane when Γ changes sign with the Hugoniot and the isentrope becoming tangent where Γ = 0 (see Sec. V C of Menikoff and Plohr9).

FIG. 9.

Grüneisen parameter surface obtained from the EOS model in terms of V ^ = V / ( V + V a ) and T ^ = T / ( T + T a ) , where V a and T a represent the ambient state specific volume and temperature, respectively. The wireframe marks the V T domain where the thermal calibration was conducted.

FIG. 9.

Grüneisen parameter surface obtained from the EOS model in terms of V ^ = V / ( V + V a ) and T ^ = T / ( T + T a ) , where V a and T a represent the ambient state specific volume and temperature, respectively. The wireframe marks the V T domain where the thermal calibration was conducted.

Close modal
FIG. 10.

Non-dimensional thermodynamic space in terms of V ^ = V / ( V + V a ) and T ^ = T / ( T + T a ) , where V a and T a represent the ambient state specific volume and temperature, respectively. The gray shaded areas indicate the regions where the material is under tension.

FIG. 10.

Non-dimensional thermodynamic space in terms of V ^ = V / ( V + V a ) and T ^ = T / ( T + T a ) , where V a and T a represent the ambient state specific volume and temperature, respectively. The gray shaded areas indicate the regions where the material is under tension.

Close modal

A more problematic region for the beryllium calibration occurs where K T < 0 at V / V a 2.5 expansions along the principal isentrope. This is due to a relatively high Γ 0 value that causes the thermal pressure term of the EOS to increase with volume rather than decrease. Having regions of thermodynamic instability when Γ 0 O ( 1 ) is a deficiency of the model that would require a different functional form for the temperature scale θ ( V ) . Despite the negative K T region, the isentropic bulk modulus K S remains positive in all V T , which is needed for the non-thermally conducting compressible fluid flow equations to be hyperbolic. Both PETN and nitromethane calibrations are thermodynamically stable in all V T space and all three calibrations have G > 0 everywhere. As shown in Fig. 10, the principal isentrope (blue solid line) expands down to zero temperature for all three materials. In the limiting case of Γ 0 = 0 , the expansion takes place down to a finite temperature because Γ controls the slope of the insentropes in log T log V space. The principal Hugoniot (red solid line) has a local extremum of V corresponding to the strong shock limit at V ^ min 1 2 Γ Γ + 1 . This limit is physically understood as the balance between shock compression and thermal expansion due to shock heating.2 

The calibrations in Table III for single-crystal PETN, liquid nitromethane, and beryllium are compared to experimental Hugoniot data from multiple sources. We also include one-dimensional hydrodynamic calculations of the isentropic compression experiments of Swift et al.73 for beryllium.

The top row in Fig. 11 shows the shock velocity U s vs particle velocity u p while the bottom row shows pressure vs normalized specific volume. For PETN, the EOS calibration matches the overall data from the Marsh compendium74 and Armstrong et al.75 at medium and high compression, but it appears to worsen at low compression. Due to the lack of data at low particle velocities, we are unable to discern if the discrepancy is due to the EOS model or due to forcing a thermal expansion coefficient β a that is too high. Replacing β a in Table II with the calculated value reported by Perriot76 raises the ambient sound speed and improves the agreement with the data (not shown here). If accurate sound speed measurements were to become available, the calibration in Table III could be revisited. For liquid nitromethane, we found good agreement at low and high compression ratios against the data by Marsh74 and Lysne and Hardesty.68 The data by Lysne and Hardesty68 was corrected to T = 298 K since the original measurements were collected at different initial temperatures. The correction is done using the expressions for the initial sound speed and specific volume provided by the authors. For beryllium, Fig. 11 shows the explosively-driven flyer experiments from Marsh74 and the magnetically-driven flyer experiments from McCoy et al.77 As shown in the phase diagram by Coe et al.,66 the HCP BCC phase transition on the Hugoniot takes place at P 150  GPa. The beryllium calibration in Table III is no longer expected to be accurate at higher pressures, but it remains thermodynamically well-behaved.

FIG. 11.

Shock velocity vs particle velocity ( U s u p ) and pressure vs compression ( P V / V a ) along the principal Hugoniot for (a) single-crystal PETN, (b) liquid nitromethane, and (c) HCP beryllium. The markers indicate experimental data from different sources and the solid lines represent the EOS model using the calibration parameters in Table III.

FIG. 11.

Shock velocity vs particle velocity ( U s u p ) and pressure vs compression ( P V / V a ) along the principal Hugoniot for (a) single-crystal PETN, (b) liquid nitromethane, and (c) HCP beryllium. The markers indicate experimental data from different sources and the solid lines represent the EOS model using the calibration parameters in Table III.

Close modal

Swift and co-workers73 report isentropic loading results of beryllium using the Z pulsed power facility at Sandia National Laboratories. In the experimental setup, a 0.6  mm-thick aluminum 6061 liner is magnetically driven onto beryllium samples of different thicknesses. Lithium fluoride windows are mounted on the samples and the velocity history of the Be–LiF interface is recorded using laser Doppler velocimetry (point VISAR). The authors collected eight separate velocimetry measurements from Z shot 843: four records of the Al liner driving the LiF window without Be, two records for the 0.25  mm sample of Be, and two records for the 0.50  mm sample of Be. To assess the EOS model and the Be calibration, we conduct 1D hydrodynamic calculations corresponding to the Al liner driving a 0.25  mm sample of Be and the LiF window.

The first step is to estimate the time-dependent drive at the aluminum free surface from the four Al-LiF VISAR measurements without beryllium. There are different techniques to unravel the drive but they all require assuming equations of state for the liner and window. We use a Mie–Grüneisen based on a linear U s u p and ρ Γ = ρ a Γ a . The aluminum EOS parameters are ρ Al = 2.703 g c m 3 , c Al = 5.24 mm μ s 1 , s Al = 1.40 , Γ Al = 1.97 . The LiF EOS parameters are ρ LiF = 2.638 g c m 3 , c LiF = 5.15 mm μ s 1 , s LiF = 1.35 , Γ LiF = 1.69 . The pressure at the boundary is obtained iteratively by assuming a 15 -point natural cubic spline and running wave calculations forward in time until the Al-LiF interface matches the experimental velocity record. This is done for all four VISAR records of the Al liner driving the LiF window since they show time differences of approximately 3  ns. Additional details and the numerical values to reproduce each of the drives can be found in the supplementary material.

Once the time-dependent drive at the free surface is known, we conduct the full calculations with the Al liner, the LiF window, and a 0.25 -mm thick Be sample between the two. The Be is modeled using our EOS and the calibration parameters in Table III. Figure 12 (left) shows the velocity histories at the Be–LiF interface from the two VISAR records and the simulations with each of the four pressure drives. Good agreement is found between the experiment and simulations given the time uncertainty in the measurements of the drive. To better understand the dynamics of this problem, Fig. 12 (middle) depicts the magnitude of the density gradient corresponding to one of the pressure drives in position–time coordinates. Two acoustic disturbances appear at the Al–Be interface and Be–LiF interface that travel backward to the free surface and then reflect forward to impinge the Be–LiF interface at t ( 1 ) 0.335 μ s and t ( 2 ) 0.360 μ s . If we use the particle velocity rather than the pressure at the boundary, the “(1)” disturbance interferes with the drive in a different manner. This is shown in Fig. 12 (right) where there is a split in the Be–LiF velocity profile between both types of presumed drives. The “(2)” disturbance can also be seen in both profiles as a small kink in the velocity. Using the pressure as the boundary condition is the common practice and gives better agreement with experiments.

FIG. 12.

Be–LiF interface velocity (left) from the VISAR measurements73 and simulation results using four different drives. Magnitude of the density gradient in the position–time plane (middle). Calculated Be–LiF interface velocity plot (right) using pressure vs velocity as the drive at the free surface. The numbered labels indicate the impingement of the acoustic disturbances on the Be–LiF interface.

FIG. 12.

Be–LiF interface velocity (left) from the VISAR measurements73 and simulation results using four different drives. Magnitude of the density gradient in the position–time plane (middle). Calculated Be–LiF interface velocity plot (right) using pressure vs velocity as the drive at the free surface. The numbered labels indicate the impingement of the acoustic disturbances on the Be–LiF interface.

Close modal

All the calculations shown in Fig. 12 were conducted using a 1D Lagrangian research hydrocode78 with the PVRS approximate Riemann solver79 and a Courant number of 0.8 . The Be–LiF velocity profiles use an initial spatial resolution of Δ x 0 = 5 μ m and a second-order minmod spatial reconstruction that matches the one applied in the forward calculations of the drives. For the density gradient in Fig. 12 (middle), we applied a first-order reconstruction instead and an initial resolution of Δ x 0 = 1 μ m .

There is a need for analytic equations of state that can accurately reproduce theoretical and experimental data at a wide range of temperature and specific volume. The devised model is a complete and thermodynamically consistent EOS with four distinct features: (1) a reference isotherm that remains thermodynamically stable, (2) a flexible specific heat model based on a fourth-order rational polynomial, (3) a Grüneisen parameter that depends on V and T , and (4) pressure and internal energy functions that are analytically invertible in T . The model aims to improve the accuracy of existing equations of state while remaining computationally efficient. To demonstrate the features of the EOS, we include calibrations for single-crystal PETN, liquid nitromethane, and HCP beryllium. The calibrations are conducted in two sequential steps for the thermal model and the cold curve. The optimization uses the specific heat, Grüneisen parameter, and static compression curve obtained from density functional theory while enforcing the ambient state from experimental measurements. To limit the range of values for the fitting parameters, we derive analytic constraints using thermodynamic stability and convexity at the infinite temperature limit. Good agreement was found between the model and experimental Hugoniot data for the three example materials. The agreement is largely tied to the values of the experimental ambient state and the accuracy of the DFT in the range of interest. We also include 1D hydrodynamic simulations of isentropic compression experiments conducted for beryllium at the Z facility. The simulations match the velocimetry records within the time uncertainty of the data. Additional calibrations will be conducted in the future for other condensed phase materials—such as polymer-bonded explosives—where a porosity model will be used to augment the current EOS.

The supplementary material includes a section dedicated to code developers interested in the implementation and verification of the equation of state as well as details of the Z compression experiment.

The authors would like to thank Ralph Menikoff, Sven Rudin, Romain Perriot, and Jeff Leiding for many insightful discussions. They also thank Damian Swift for sharing the experimental data of the beryllium isentropic compression test and Joseph Zaug for the ultrafast interferometry data of shocked PETN. This work was supported by the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program, the Institutional Computing (IC) Program and the Conventional High Explosives (CHE) Grand Challenge project through Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated by Triad National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of U.S. Department of Energy (Contract No. 89233218CNA000001).

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Eduardo Lozano: Conceptualization (equal); Formal analysis (lead); Methodology (equal); Software (lead); Validation (equal); Visualization (lead); Writing – original draft (lead). Marc J. Cawkwell: Data curation (equal); Resources (equal); Validation (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Tariq D. Aslam: Conceptualization (equal); Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Validation (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal).

The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary material

This appendix outlines the steps to compute the physically-relevant temperature root from the pressure or internal energy functions given in Sec. III A. Let us first consider a general quartic equation of the form
A τ 4 + B τ 3 + C τ 2 + D τ + E = 0.
(A1)
The following solution procedure is based on Ferrari’s method using the formulas for the quadratic and cubic equations. We first compute the following terms:
ξ 0 = 8 A C 3 B 2 ,
(A2a)
ξ 1 = B 3 4 A B C + 8 A 2 D ,
(A2b)
ξ 2 = C 2 3 B D + 12 A E ,
(A2c)
ξ 3 = 2 C 3 9 B C D + 27 B 2 E + 27 A D 2 72 A C E .
(A2d)
Using Eq. (A2), we then evaluate
Δ = 1 2 ( ξ 3 + ξ 3 2 4 ξ 2 3 )
(A3)
and substitute Eq. (A3) in
Ω = 1 2 ξ 0 12 A 2 + 1 3 A ( Δ 1 3 + ξ 2 Δ 1 3 ) .
(A4)
The physical root τ is given by
τ = Ω B 4 A + 1 2 4 Ω 2 ξ 0 4 A 2 ξ 1 8 Ω A 3 .
(A5)
These steps are limited to Eq. (A3) being a real number which is always the case for the quartic equations defined in Eqs. (15) and (19).
This appendix summarizes the expressions for the temperature scale θ , the linear coefficient a , and their first and second derivatives in terms of η = V / V . For the temperature scale θ ( η ) model in Eq. (25),
θ = θ 0 η Γ 0 ( η m + 1 ) Γ Γ 0 m ,
(B1a)
d θ d η = θ η ( Γ 0 + Γ Γ 0 1 + η m ) ,
(B1b)
d 2 θ d η 2 = 1 θ ( d θ d η ) 2 1 η d θ d η ( m Γ Γ + m Γ 0 m η m + 1 + 1 ) .
(B1c)
For the linear coefficient a ( V ) model in Eq. (26),
a = a 0 1 + η n ,
(B2a)
d a d η = n η a 0 η n ( 1 + η n ) 2 ,
(B2b)
d 2 a d η 2 = 1 η d a d η ( 1 n ) + ( 1 + n ) η n 1 + η n .
(B2c)
In terms of the specific volume V , the k -th derivative is given by
d k d V k = 1 V k d k d η k .
1.
O.
Anderson
,
Equations of State for Solids in Geophysics and Ceramic Science
(
Oxford University Press
,
1995
), Vol. 31.
2.
R.
Menikoff
, in ShockWave Science and Technology Reference Library (Springer, 2007), pp. 143–188.
3.
W. C.
Davis
,
Combust. Flame
120
,
399
(
2000
).
4.
D.
Hayes
, Sixth International Symposium on Detonation, Pasadena, CA (Office of Naval Research, 1976).
5.
J. H.
Tillotson
, “Metallic equations of state for hypervelocity impact,” Tech. Rep. No. GA-3216 (General Dynamics San Diego CA General Atomic DIV, 1962).
6.
E.
Lozano
and
T. D.
Aslam
,
J. Appl. Phys.
131
,
015902
(
2022
).
7.
A.
Rajendran
,
M.
Dietenberger
, and
D.
Grove
,
J. Appl. Phys.
65
,
1521
(
1989
).
8.
F.
Addessio
and
J.
Johnson
,
J. Appl. Phys.
74
,
1640
(
1993
).
9.
R.
Menikoff
and
B. J.
Plohr
,
Rev. Mod. Phys.
61
,
75
(
1989
).
10.
R. S.
Menikoff
, “Complete EOS for PBX 9502,” Tech. Rep. LA-UR-09-06529 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2009).
11.
J.
Winey
,
G.
Duvall
,
M.
Knudson
, and
Y.
Gupta
,
J. Chem. Phys.
113
,
7492
(
2000
).
12.
M.
Born
and
K.
Huang
,
Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices
(
Clarendon Press
,
Oxford
,
1954
).
13.
D. C.
Wallace
,
Thermodynamics of Crystals
(
Dover
,
New York
,
1998
).
14.
P.
Hohenberg
and
W.
Kohn
,
Phys. Rev.
136
,
B:864
(
1964
).
15.
W.
Kohn
and
L. J.
Sham
,
Phys. Rev.
140
,
1133
(
1965
).
16.
M. J.
Cawkwell
,
D. S.
Montgomery
,
K. J.
Ramos
, and
C. A.
Bolme
,
J. Phys. Chem. A
121
,
238
(
2017
).
17.
O. V.
Sergeev
,
A. E.
Mukhanov
,
S. A.
Murzov
, and
A. V.
Yanilkin
,
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.
22
,
27572
(
2020
).
18.
M. J.
Cawkwell
,
M.
Zecevic
,
D. J.
Luscher
, and
K. J.
Ramos
,
Propellants Explos. Pyrotech.
46
,
705
(
2021
).
19.
M.
Finnis
,
Interatomic Forces in Condensed Matter
(
Oxford University Press
,
2003
).
20.
V. L.
Deringer
,
M. A.
Caro
, and
G.
Csanyi
,
Adv. Mater.
32
,
1902765
(
2019
).
21.
J. M.
Dickey
and
A.
Paskin
,
Phys. Rev.
188
,
1407
(
1969
).
22.
R.
Menikoff
, “Complete Mie-Gruneisen equation of state (update),” Tech. Rep. LA-UR-16-21706 [Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, 2016].
23.
S.
Sheffield
and
G.
Duvall
,
J. Chem. Phys.
79
,
1981
(
1983
).
24.
F. D.
Stacey
,
Minerals
9
,
636
(
2019
).
25.
F.
Birch
,
Phys. Rev.
71
,
809
(
1947
).
26.
P.
Vinet
,
J. H.
Rose
,
J.
Ferrante
, and
J. R.
Smith
,
J. Phys.: Condens. Matter
1
,
1941
(
1989
).
27.
C.
Kittel
,
Introduction to Solid State Physics
, 7th ed. (
John Wiley & Sons
,
1996
).
28.
N. W.
Ashcroft
and
N. D.
Mermin
,
Solid State Physics
(
Harcourt College Publishers
,
1976
).
29.
F. D.
Stacey
and
J. H.
Hodgkinson
,
Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.
286
,
42
(
2019
).
30.
P. A.
Thompson
,
Phys. Fluids
14
,
1843
(
1971
).
31.
L. F.
Henderson
and
R.
Menikoff
,
J. Fluid Mech.
366
,
179
(
1998
).
32.
S. P.
Lyon
and
J. D.
Johnson
, “SESAME: The los alamos national laboratory equation of state database,” Tech. Rep. LA-UR-92-3407 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1992).
33.
J. W.
Conant
,
H. H.
Cady
,
R. R.
Ryan
,
J. L.
Yarnell
, and
J. M.
Newsam
, “The atom positions of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN, C 5 H 8 N 4 O 12 ) determined by x-ray and by neutron diffraction,” Tech. Rep. LA-7756-MS (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1979).
34.
B.
Olinger
,
P.
Halleck
, and
H. H.
Cady
,
J. Chem. Phys.
62
,
4480
(
1975
).
35.
T. D.
Aslam
,
C. A.
Bolme
,
K. J.
Ramos
,
M. J.
Cawkwell
,
C.
Ticknor
,
M. A.
Price
,
J. A.
Leiding
,
N. J.
Sanchez
, and
S. A.
Andrews
,
J. Appl. Phys.
130
,
025901
(
2021
).
36.
J.
VandeVondele
,
M.
Krack
,
F.
Mohamed
,
M.
Parrinello
,
T.
Chassaing
, and
J.
Hutter
,
Computer Phys. Commun.
167
,
103
(
2005
).
37.
J. P.
Perdew
,
K.
Burke
, and
M.
Ernzerhof
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
77
,
3865
(
1996
).
38.
S.
Goedecker
,
M.
Teter
, and
J.
Hutter
,
Phys. Rev. B
54
,
1703
(
1996
).
39.
S.
Grimme
,
S.
Ehrlich
, and
L.
Goerigk
,
J. Comput. Chem.
32
,
1456
(
2011
).
40.
H. J.
Monkhorst
and
J. D.
Pack
,
Phys. Rev. B
13
,
5188
(
1976
).
41.
latte. Los Alamos National Laboratory. https://github.com/lanl/LATTE (2010).
42.
M.
Elstner
,
D.
Poresag
,
G.
Jungnickel
,
J.
Elsner
,
M.
Haugk
,
T.
Frauenheim
,
S.
Suhai
, and
G.
Seifert
,
Phys. Rev. B
58
,
7260
(
1998
).
43.
T.
Frauenheim
,
G.
Seifert
,
M.
Elstner
,
Z.
Hajnal
,
G.
Jungnickel
,
D.
Porezag
,
S.
Suhai
, and
R.
Scholz
,
Phys. Stat. Sol. B
217
,
41
(
2000
).
44.
M. J.
Cawkwell
and
R.
Perriot
,
J. Chem. Phys.
150
,
024107
(
2019
).
45.
N.
Lease
,
L. M.
Klamborowski
,
R.
Perriot
,
M. J.
Cawkwell
, and
V. W.
Manner
,
J. Phys. Chem. Lett.
13
,
9422
(
2022
).
46.
A. M. N.
Niklasson
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
100
,
123004
(
2008
).
47.
M. J.
Cawkwell
and
A. M. N.
Niklasson
,
J. Chem. Phys.
137
,
134105
(
2012
).
48.
E.
Martínez
,
M. J.
Cawkwell
,
A. F.
Voter
, and
A. M. N.
Niklasson
,
J. Chem. Phys.
142
,
154120
(
2015
).
49.
B. O.
Reese
,
L. B.
Seely
,
R.
Shaw
, and
D.
Tegg
,
J. Chem. Eng. Data
15
,
140
(
1970
).
50.
X.
Jin
,
H.
Guan
,
R.
Wang
,
L.
Huang
, and
C.
Shao
,
Powder Technol.
412
,
117969
(
2022
).
51.
J.
Lahnsteiner
and
M.
Bokdam
,
Phys. Rev. B
105
,
024302
(
2022
).
52.
T. A.
Brzinski
and
K. E.
Daniels
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
120
,
218003
(
2018
).
53.
R. D.
Johnson
, III, NIST 101. Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark Database (
1999
).
54.
D.
Gorse
,
D.
Cavagnat
,
M.
Pesquer
, and
C.
Lapouge
,
J. Phys. Chem.
97
,
4262
(
1993
).
55.
G.
Kresse
and
J.
Hafner
,
Phys. Rev. B
47
,
558
(
1993
).
56.
G.
Kresse
and
J.
Hafner
,
Phys. Rev. B
49
,
261
(
1994
).
57.
G.
Kresse
and
J.
Furthmuller
,
Phys. Rev. B
54
,
11169
(
1996
).
58.
G.
Kresse
and
J.
Furthmuller
,
Comput. Mat. Sci.
6
,
15
(
1996
).
59.
G.
Blöchl
,
Phys. Rev. B
50
,
17953
(
1994
).
60.
G.
Kresse
and
J.
Joubert
,
Phys. Rev. B
59
,
1758
(
1999
).
61.
M.
Methfessel
and
A. T.
Paxton
,
Phys. Rev. B
40
,
3616
(
1989
).
62.
D. R.
Schwarzenberger
,
Philos. Mag. A
4
,
1242
(
1959
).
63.
A.
Togo
and
I.
Tanaka
,
Scr. Mater.
108
,
1
(
2015
).
64.
A.
Lazicki
,
A.
Dewaele
,
P.
Loubeyre
, and
M.
Mezouar
,
Phys. Rev. B
86
,
174118
(
2012
).
65.
C.
Greeff
,
Model. Simul. Mat. Sci. Eng.
13
,
1015
(
2005
).
66.
J. D.
Coe
,
S. P.
Rudin
, and
B.
Maiorov
,
AIP Conf. Proc.
2272
,
070009
(
2020
).
67.
H. H.
Cady
,
J. Chem. Eng. Data
17
,
369
(
1972
).
68.
P.
Lysne
and
D.
Hardesty
,
J. Chem. Phys.
59
,
6512
(
1973
).
69.
A.
Migliori
,
H.
Ledbetter
,
D.
Thoma
, and
T.
Darling
,
J. Appl. Phys.
95
,
2436
(
2004
).
70.
P.
Virtanen
,
R.
Gommers
,
T. E.
Oliphant
,
M.
Haberland
,
T.
Reddy
,
D.
Cournapeau
,
E.
Burovski
,
P.
Peterson
,
W.
Weckesser
,
J.
Bright
,
S. J.
van der Walt
,
M.
Brett
,
J.
Wilson
,
K. J.
Millman
,
N.
Mayorov
,
A. R. J.
Nelson
,
E.
Jones
,
R.
Kern
,
E.
Larson
,
C. J.
Carey
,
İ.
Polat
,
Y.
Feng
,
E. W.
Moore
,
J.
VanderPlas
,
D.
Laxalde
,
J.
Perktold
,
R.
Cimrman
,
I.
Henriksen
,
E. A.
Quintero
,
C. R.
Harris
,
A. M.
Archibald
,
A. H.
Ribeiro
,
F.
Pedregosa
,
P.
van Mulbregt
, and
SciPy 1.0 Contributors
,
Nat. Methods
17
,
261
(
2020
).
71.
D. J.
Wales
and
J. P.
Doye
,
J. Phys. Chem. A
101
,
5111
(
1997
).
72.
M.
Newville
,
T.
Stensitzki
,
D. B.
Allen
, and
A.
Ingargiola
, “LMFIT: Non-linear least-square minimization and curve-fitting for python” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11813.
73.
D.
Swift
,
D.
Paisley
, and
M.
Knudson
,
AIP Conf. Proc.
706
,
119
(
2004
).
74.
S. P.
Marsh
,
LASL Shock Hugoniot Data
(
University of California Press
,
1980
).
75.
M.
Armstrong
,
J.
Crowhurst
,
S.
Bastea
, and
J.
Zaug
, Fourteenth International Symposium on Detonation, Coeur D’ Alene, Idaho (Office of Naval Research, 2010).
76.
R.
Perriot
,
J. Appl. Phys.
130
,
225102
(
2021
).
77.
C. A.
McCoy
,
M. D.
Knudson
, and
M. P.
Desjarlais
,
Phys. Rev. B
100
,
054107
(
2019
).
78.
E.
Lozano
and
K. A.
Velizhanin
, “REYNO: A reactive hydrodynamics modeling suite,” Tech. Rep. No. LA-UR-23-30285 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2023).
79.
E. F.
Toro
,
Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Practical Introduction
(
Springer Science & Business Media
,
2013
).
Published open access through an agreement with Los Alamos National Laboratory

Supplementary Material