=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1452/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Identification of Three-Dimensional Crystal Lattices by Estimation of Their Unit Cell Parameters
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1452/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-1452
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/aist/KirshK15
}}
==Identification of Three-Dimensional Crystal Lattices by Estimation of Their Unit Cell Parameters==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1452/paper5.pdf
Identification of Three-Dimensional
Crystal Lattices by Estimation of Their
Unit Cell Parameters?
Dmitriy Kirsh1,2 and Alexander Kupriyanov1,2
1
Samara State Aerospace University (National Research University),
Samara, Russian Federation
2
Image Processing Systems Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences,
Samara, Russian Federation
Abstract. The problem of the identification of three-dimensional crys-
tal lattices is considered in the article. Two matching methods based
on estimation of unit cell parameters were developed to solve this prob-
lem. The first method estimates and compares main parameters of Bra-
vais unit cells. The second method estimates and compares volumes of
Wigner-Seitz unit cells. Both methods include normalised similarity mea-
sures: an edge similarity measure and an angle similarity measure for
Bravais cells and a volume similarity measure for Wigner-Seitz cells.
The results of computational experiments on the large set of simulated
lattices showed that the developed methods allowed to achieve the iden-
tification accuracy above 90% for four lattice systems.
Keywords: crystal lattice, unit cell parameters, Monte Carlo method,
similarity measure, structural identification
1 Introduction
One of the basic problems related to X-ray diffraction analysis is the identifica-
tion of crystal lattices [5]. It is usually solved by comparing estimated parameters
of analysed lattice with those of selected sample [2]. The lattice parameters ei-
ther previously investigated or derived by modeling can be used as samples.
Therefore the accurate identification of a crystal lattice requires a large data
base of the preselected sample parameters.
Among the main methods for identification of three-dimensional crystal lat-
tices the following ones can be singled out: NIST lattice comparator [1], iden-
tification on the basis of atomic packing factor [4] and centered cubic lattice
?
The work was financially supported by the Ministry of education and science of
the Russian Federation in the framework of the implementation of the Program of
increasing the competitiveness of SSAU among the worlds leading scientific and ed-
ucational centers for 2013-2020 years; by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
grants (# 14-01-00369-a, # 14-07-97040-p povolzh’e a); by the ONIT RAS program
# 6 Bioinformatics, modern information technologies and mathematical methods in
medicine 2015.
40
comparison method [3]. These methods have a number of drawbacks limiting
their application field: complexity of crystal preparation, high error in compari-
son of lattices, which are similar in volume, etc.
The new approach based on estimation of unit cell parameters attempts to
avoid these drawbacks. The algorithms proposed in the work allow calculating
a similarity measure for any two crystal lattices.
2 Models of Crystal Lattices
There are several methods to describe crystal lattices. The most widespread
method was offered by Auguste Bravais [5]. Bravais unit cell is characterised by
a set of six parameters: lengths of the three edges l1 , l2 , l3 and values of the three
angles between the edges α1 , α2 , α3 (Fig. 1).
α2
α3
l3
α1
l1
l2
Fig. 1. The main parameters of Bravais unit cell
All Bravais lattices are subdivided into seven lattice systems. Table 1 shows
characteristics of their unit cells.
Table 1. Characteristics of lattice systems
Lattice system Symbol Edge lengths Angles
Triclinic aP l1 6= l2 6= l3 α1 6= α2 6= α3
Monoclinic mP l1 6= l2 6= l3 α1 = α2 = 90◦ 6= α3
Orthorhombic oP l1 6= l2 6= l3 α1 = α2 = α3 = 90◦
Tetragonal tP l1 = l2 6= l3 α1 = α2 = α3 = 90◦
Cubic cP l1 = l2 = l 3 α1 = α2 = α3 = 90◦
Rhombohedral hR l1 = l2 = l3 α1 = α2 = α3 6= 90◦
Hexagonal hP l1 = l2 6= l3 α1 = 120◦ ; α2 = α3 = 90◦
41
Another model of crystal lattices was offered by Jeno Wigner and Frederick
Seitz [6]. Wigner-Seitz unit cell is characterised by a set of normal vectors which
are drawn to limiting planes. In a three-dimensional space it is a polyhedron
which contains inside itself one lattice node (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Body-centered cubic Wigner-Seitz cell
3 Method of Crystal Lattice Identification on the Basis
of Bravais Unit Cell Parameter Estimation
The initial data of the identification method are the set of radius-vectors deter-
mining the spatial position of crystal lattice nodes.
The following algorithm was designed to calculate the six main parameters
of the Bravais unit cell:
1. Center the lattice.
2. Superpose the first radius-vector of minimal length with the axis OX.
3. Transfer the second radius-vector of minimal length into the plane XOY .
4. Select the third radius-vector of minimal length.
5. Calculate the main six parameters: l1 , l2 , l3 , α1 , α2 , α3 .
Two normalised measures were introduced to determine separately the degree
of the edge similarity and the degree of the angle similarity of two Bravais unit
cells.
Similarity measure of edges:
q
2 2 2
(l11 − l21 ) + (l12 − l22 ) + (l13 − l23 )
kl1 − l2 k = 1 − q q (1)
2 2 2 2 2 2
max (l11 ) + (l12 ) + (l13 ) , (l21 ) + (l22 ) + (l23 )
42
Similarity measure of angles:
kα1 − α2 k = 1 − max {sin (|α11 − α21 |), sin (|α12 − α22 |), sin (|α13 − α23 |)} (2)
4 Method of Crystal Lattice Identification on the Basis
of Wigner-Seitz Unit Cell Volume Estimation
The initial data of the identification method are the number of scattering points
L and the set of radius-vectors determining the spatial position of crystal lattice
nodes.
The following algorithm was designed to calculate the volume of the Wigner-
Seitz cell:
1. Center the lattice.
2. Determine the normal vectors from central lattice node to the planes limiting
Wigner-Seitz cell.
3. Calculate the volume of cell limited by planes with the use of the Monte
Carlo method.
(a) Generate L-values of three-dimensional random vectors which are uni-
formly distributed in the whole lattice volume.
(b) Count the number of vectors that hit in the region limited by planes and
calculate the volume of cell based on the fact that the probability of hit
in the Wigner-Seitz cell region is proportional to its measure (volume).
A normalised measure was introduced to determine the degree of the volume
similarity for two Wigner-Seitz unit cells:
q
2
(V1 − V2 )
kV1 − V2 k = 1 − (3)
max {V1 , V2 }
The following computational experiments of crystal lattice identification on
the large set of simulated three-dimensional lattices were conducted to analyse
the efficiency of the introduced similarity measures.
5 Results of Experimental Computations
The initial data for experiments were 7,000 lattices (1000 lattices of each lattice
system) obtained by simulation. The lengths of edges and values of angles were
determined by values of a uniformly distributed random variable.
Each lattice was matched with all the rest lattices in pairs: two lattices were
considered to be similar in edges or in angles, if the value of the corresponding
similarity measure was no less than 0.95. Selection of this limiting value relates
to the fact that currently the error of lattice parameter determination is no less
than 5% [1].
43
Two lattices in the first experiment were brought into comparison only by
the value of the edge similarity measure. Matching of two lattices in the second
experiment was carried out only by the value of the angle similarity measure.
However, the derived values of the percentage of lattice exact identification were
near 14% for all lattice system in both experiments. These results show that
the partitioning of all Bravais crystal lattices into seven lattice systems by using
only the edge similarity measure or the angle similarity measure is not uniform
and separable.
Consequently more exact lattice identification requires the simultaneous ap-
plication of both similarity measures. For this reason in the third experiment two
lattices were considered to be similar if values of the edge similarity measure and
the angle similarity measure were no less than 0.95. Table 2 shows the results.
Table 2. Percentage of lattice exact identification for the main lattice systems by
simultaneous edges and angles comparison
Estimated Sample cell
cell aP mP oP tP cP hR hP
aP 98 1 1 0 0 0 0
mP 7 39 36 14 1 0 3
oP 6 36 39 14 1 1 3
tP 5 26 26 34 4 4 1
cP 4 12 12 23 26 23 0
hR 11 2 2 3 4 78 0
hP 12 3 3 2 0 0 80
Table data show average percent of coincidence of the estimated lattices with
sample lattices (both similarity measures are no less than 0.95). For example the
set of sample lattices which have coincided with one of the rhombohedral lattices
in the third experiment consists on the average of 11% triclinic, of 2% monoclinic,
of 2% orthorhombic, of 3% tetragonal, of 4% cubic, of 78% rhombohedral and
of 0% hexagonal.
The use of the volume similarity measure of Wigner-Seitz unit cells was the
last step to increase the identification accuracy. Matching of two lattices in the
final fourth experiment was conducted with the application of all three similarity
measures simultaneously: edges and angles of Bravais unit cells and volumes of
Wigner-Seitz unit cells. Table 3 shows the results of the experiment.
According to Table 2 and Table 3 data it can be concluded that the accu-
racy of lattice identification increased by average 15%. The maximum increase
of accuracy was achieved for monoclinic lattices by 51%. However, there is a sep-
arate group (orthorhombic, tetragonal, cubic) with the low percentage of lattice
exact identification and, therefore, the problem of delimiting these three lattice
systems cannot be considered as solved.
44
Table 3. Percentage of lattice exact identification for the main lattice systems by
simultaneous edges, angles and volumes comparison
Estimated Sample cell
cell aP mP oP tP cP hR hP
aP 99 1 0 0 0 0 0
mP 2 90 4 3 0 0 1
oP 2 22 54 20 1 1 0
tP 1 10 34 44 6 5 0
cP 0 3 15 26 30 26 0
hR 1 0 2 3 4 90 0
hP 1 7 0 0 0 0 92
6 Conclusion
The developed methods of crystal lattice identification allowed to achieve the
identification accuracy above 90% for four lattice systems (triclinic, monoclinic,
rhombohedral and hexagonal).
Basing on the performed calculation it can be concluded that the best way to
identify the lattice system for the generated set of 7,000 lattices is simultaneous
application of all three introduced similarity measures.
Identification accuracy of the remaining three lattice systems (orthorhombic,
tetragonal and cubic) is not still sufficiently high. They require further research
for the purpose of finding additional similarity measures (for example, compari-
son of isosurfaces, tensor representation of unit cells, etc.).
References
1. Kessler, E., Henins, A., Deslattes, R., Nielsen, L., Arif, M.: Precision Comparison of
the Lattice Parameters of Silicon Monocrystals. Journal of Research of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology 99, 1–18 (1994)
2. Kupriyanov, A.: Texture analysis and identification of the crystal lattice type upon
the nanoscale images. Computer Optics 35, 128–135 (2011) (in Russian)
3. Patera, J., Skala, V.: Centered cubic lattice method comparison. In: 17th ALGO-
RITMY Conference on Scientific Computing, pp. 309–319. Slovakia (2005)
4. Smith, W.: Foundations of Materials Science and Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New
York (2004)
5. Soifer, V., Kupriyanov, A.: Analysis and recognition of the nanoscale images: con-
ventional approach and novel problem statement. Computer Optics 35, 136–144
(2011) (in Russian)
6. Tilley, R.: Crystals and crystal structures. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2006)
45