English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the Letter [J. Nucl. Mater. 444, 356 (2014)] and Comment [Phys Rev B 90,157101 (2014)], Soderlind et al. argue that 1) DFT based on GGA already modelsU metal and U-Zr alloy accurately, and 2) DFT + U models them worse than DFTaccording to results they calculate or select from our recent study [Phys. Rev.B 88, 235128 (2013)]. Here we demonstrate in response to 1) that previouslyneglected and more recent experimental data indicate that DFT, even whenimplemented in all-electron methods, does not model the bulk modulus andelastic constants of {\alpha}U very accurately. Furthermore, Soderlind et al.'sclaim that deficiency exists in our PAW calculation is unfounded and hence ourresults, including those that show DFT results compare unfavorably withexperimental/computational references, are valid. We also demonstrate inresponse to 2) that Soderlind et al.'s arguments are unsound for three reasons.First, they focus on just the BCC phases {\gamma}U and {\gamma}(U,Zr)--which atthe ab initio modeling temperature of 0 K are unstable and hence difficult tomodel and benchmar--as primary subjects of examination; however it is resultsfor the stable phases mostly neglected by Soderlind et al. that are the primaryevidence of our argument. Second, they make unfounded generalization of DFT + Uresults at selected U eff values to argue that DFT + U in general gives wrongor unsatisfactory results. Third, some key points in Soderlind et al.'scriticisms of DFT + U are not well supported, including the claims that for{\gamma}(U,Zr) DFT + U at Ueff = 1.24 eV gives positive deviations from lineardependence of composition that are unprecedentedly large and partially negativeenthalpies of mixing that are inconsistent with the existence of miscibilitygap in the experimental phase diagram. We therefore maintain our conclusionthat DFT + U can be of value for modeling U and U-Zr.

Applicability of DFT + U to U metal and U-Zr alloy