Powder Diffraction Pattern: Origin of Line Broadening & Peak Shape Functions
Antonella Guagliardi
antonella.guagliardi@ic.cnr.it
B a r i Italy
Summer School on Structure Determination from Powder Diffraction Data Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th - 22nd, 2008
Sample Profile
h=fg
Instrumental profile
crystal structure and volume of the illuminated sample size and shape of coherent domains lattice distorsions and defects size, divergence, energy dispersion of the beam optics (mirrors, monochromators, analyzers, slits, collimators) axial divergence geometrical aberrations (flat sample, transparency,...)
f = f1 f 2 f 3 K f n
g = g1 g 2 g 3 K g n
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th-22nd, 2008
describe the diffraction pattern as the convolution of functions able to model various contributions of the instrumental and sample profiles
In principle can be used for any experimental set-up Allows to control the diffractometer Instrument parameters directly refinable
Ability to construct a wide variety of profile shapes
Main limitations
Many different experimental set-ups (geometries & optics) Mirrors and monochromators difficult to be dealt with (depending on thermal stability)
Most methods restricted to functions that can be convoluted analytically (Lorentzians, Gaussians, impulse & exponential functions) R.W. Cheary & A. Coehlo (J. Appl. Cryst.,1987, 20, 173) described a number of tricks" for fast calculation of multiple convolution integrals (numerical integrations, integrations based on semianalitycal procedures) Fundamental Parameters Approach, implemented in TOPAS
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th - 22nd, 2008
Instrumental profile
Sample profile
Final profile
K1 and K2 (99% of intensity) + group of satellite lines in the high energy tail K1 e K2 made of doublets (1,a 1,b 2,a 2,b) 5 Lorentzian profiles Cu-K Emission profile
Info & Figs. from: A. Kern, A.A. Coelho and R.W. Cheary, in Diffraction Analysis of the Microstructure of Materials, 2004, Springer, ISBN 3-540-40519-4
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th - 22nd, 2008
Emission Profile
What can modify it:
Parabolic mirror (different separation of K1 and K2 ) Ni filter for K (tails attenuation) monochromators curve of graphite riduces , can modify Int(K1)/ Int(K2) Ge asymmetric produces a very narrow , eliminates satellites and K2 peaks Different Targets (Cr, Mn, Fe, Co and Ni, up to 7 lorentzians! ) All instrumental contributions vary with 2, except the aberration related to the receiving optic and the finite Lab-source width
Geometric instrumental aberrations tend to determine the peak profile at low to medium angles Emission profile tends to become dominant at higher angle W(2) dominates at 2 > 100 Gi(2) dominate up to 2 40-60
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th - 22nd, 2008
Cu-target
fg
WCuK W GEq
Equatorial plane Target width Divergence slit angle Receiving slit angle Sample thickness
W Geq GAx
Axial plane Target length Soller slits Receiving slit length Sample length
Rietveld Method
Rietveld, 1969
(H.Rietveld, J. Appl. Cryst, 1969, 2,65)
introduces a phenomenologic approach, aiming at refining a structural model from neutron powder diffraction data. The method describes the powder diffraction peaks through analytical functions
Y c (i ) = S IhLp hP (i , h) A(i, h) + Y b (i )
h
Lecture focused on
WPPD
S = scale factor Ih = reflection intensity (peaks area) Lph = Lorenz and polarization factors P(i,h) = analytical peak shape function (symmetric & normalized) A(i,h) = peak asymmetry function Yb(i) = background
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th - 22nd, 2008
Y c (i ) = S IhLp hP (i , h ) A (i , h ) + Y b (i )
h
Gaussiana Lorentziana
G (i,h) =
C = 4 ln 2
( )
C0
1 2
2 C0 2 i 2 h exp 2 Hh Hh 1
2 = scan angle 2 = Braggs angle of reflection h Hh = Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM)
h
i
L(i, h ) =
V=GL
2 1+ 4 ( 2 i 2 h )2 2 H h Hh
PV (i , h ) = h L (i , h ) + (1 h )G (i , h )
mixing parameter (fraction of L)
Pearson VII
mh = 1 mh =1 mh = mixing parameter
PVII(i,h) =
C0 1 + C1 (2 i 2 h) Hh Hh
mh
2(m) 21 m 1 2 C0 = 1 (m 0.5)( ) 2
1
C1 = 4 21 m 1
Cagliotis equation
mh = m0 + m1 /2h + m2 /2h2
U, V, W, m0 , m1, m2 Parameters to be refined Voigt Pseudo-Voigt (TCH) Pseudo-Voigt
Allow to combine the G and L components so that they can be related to instrumental and sample broadenings
(P. Thompson, D.E. Cox, J.B. Hastings, J. Appl. Cryst., 1987, 20, 79)
Hh = F(HG, HL)
Cagliotis equation
(R.A. Young & P. Desai, Arch. Nauk Mater., 1989, 20, 79)
h = F(Hh, HL)
H L = X cos h + Y tan h
U, V, W, P, X, Y Parameters to be refined
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th-22nd, 2008
Cagliotis equation
HG dependence on through W,V,U
Caglioti et al., 1958, proposed to model the instrumental function of neutron diffraction patterns with gaussian peaks. The Cagliotis model relies on the hypothesis that, for each optical elements of the diffractometer (crystal and/or collimator) the probability of a neutron to reach the detector is described by a gaussian distribution. (G. Caglioti, A. Paoletti, F.P. Ricci, Nuclear Instrum., 1958, 3, 23).
Sabine, 1987, generalised the Cagliotis approach to any system of alternating crystals and collimators, to deal with the more complex intrumental configuration of synchrotrons and high resolution lab diffractometers, still within a gaussian approximation.
(T.M. Sabine, J. Appl. Cryst.,1987, 20, 173)
Gozzo et al., 2006, extended the Caglioti/Sabines approach by including the effect of collimating and refocusing mirrors, still within a gaussian approximation.
(F. Gozzo, L. De Caro, C. Giannini, A. Guagliardi, B. Schimtt, A. Prodi, J. Appl. Cryst.,2006, 39, 347)
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th-22nd, 2008
Double crystal monochromator, sample, crystal analyzer - Setting (+,-,+,-) Total reflection probability
2 2 b + 2 I ( ) = dd exp ' + 2 ' + ' a m m
b=
Monochromator crystal
m = Bragg angle of
a = Bragg angle of
Analyzer crystal
a =
IRF
IRF at SLS-MS
W
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th-22nd, 2008
Interference Function
r * = ha * + kb * +lc* =
s s0
Laue equations
s s0
=h
s s0
b c Ncc
Naa
=k
s s0
=l
sin 2 (Nh ) (h )2
Translated in h=h h = -1 h = +1
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
Powder sample
Diffraction over a sphere of radius |r*| = |d*| Interference Function should be integrated over the sphere to obtain the powder diffraction profile
Tangent plane
Integration depends on shape of crystallites and on point crossing direction (Miller indices of the reflection) Good approximation simplifying calculations: integration over the tangent plane
(domains not too small / shape not strongly anisotropic!).
(Fig. 2a from: P. Scardi, in Analisi di Materiali Policristallini, 2006, Insubria University Press, ISBN 978-88-95362-04-5)
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th-22nd, 2008
s = r * rh*00
sin 2 (Nas ) ds Peak Area Na 1 I (s)ds = (as )2 h 00 ( s ) = = = = sin 2 (Ns ) ( Na ) 2 D Peak Maximum I (0) Lim s 0 (s )2
Integral Breadth inversely proportional to the domain size General relationship, independent of domain shape, lattice symmetry and hkl
( r*) =
K D
(2 ) =
K
D cos
Scherrer formula
(P. Scherrer, Gott. Nachr., 1918, 2, 98)
Heuristic approach to obtain a useful relationship between peak broadening & lattice distorsions
d d =
strain
macrostrain (macroscopic homogeneous strain) microstrain (non-homeneous strain field - on the length scale of crystallite size or smaller)
microstructure
macrostrain
Peak shift
microstrain
Peak broadening
macrostrain
A.R. Stokes, A.J.C. Wilson, Proc. Phys. Soc., London, 1944, 56, 174
peak profile (width & shape) depending on the strain field distribution within the sample
FWHM
1 2 = H G 2 ln 2
L
HL
(2 )
r.m.s. strain Root mean square deformation
K
D cos
+2 2
12
tan
Combined size-strain
< 2 >1/2
P/cos X/cos
(HG) (HL)
U tan Y tan
(HG) (HL)
Size broadening (D = 2 m)
IRF
H L = X cos h + Y tan h
Instrumental contributions Sample contributions
G
Optics
Caglioti, Sabine (1958, 1987)
G, L
size
G, L
strain
tan
(Klug & Alexander ,1954)
1/cos
(Scherrer, 1918)
tan
(Stokes & Wilson, 1944)
W,V,U
P, X
U, Y
Same parameters include effects from different sources Difficult separation of different contributions Correlation problems & instability during refinement
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th-22nd, 2008
Asymmetry Correction
Intensity (a.u.)
FWHM=0.8, m=2
FWHM=0.4, m=2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Axial Divergence (up to ~ 50 in 2 ) Flat Sample Transparency Beam divergence in the axial plane (soller slits)
2 (deg)
Axial Divergence
Detector aperture
Perfectly monochromatic and horizontally & vertically collimated incident beam Diffracted beam exhibits an axial divergence simply because it describes a Debye-Scherrer cone
0 < 2 < 90
At low angle the detector intercepts first the corners A and B, then goes across the arc AB At high angles, AB tends to a straight line and the detector intercepts the arc AB all at once
Paul Scherrer Institute, June 18th-22nd, 2008
(L.W. Finger, D.E. Cox and A.P. Jephcoat, J. Appl. Cryst., 1994, 27, 892)
H = 10 mm H = 5 mm H = 3 mm
L = sample-to-RS distance S = illuminated sample length H = RS aperture S/L & H/L parameters to be refined
Si (111)
7.44
7.52
7.60
2 (deg)