## teaching and education

## for crystal lattices

^{a}Université de Lorraine, CNRS, CRM2, Nancy, France^{*}Correspondence e-mail: massimo.nespolo@univ-lorraine.fr

*uvw*] of rational directions in crystal lattices are commonly restricted to integer numbers. This restriction is correct only when primitive unit cells are used. In the case of centred cells, however, may take fractional values too, because the first lattice node after the origin along a direction can have fractional coordinates in a centred basis. This evidence is very often overlooked and an undue simplification of to integer values is usually adopted. Although such a simplification does not affect the identification of the direction, it is potentially a source of confusion and mistakes in crystallographic calculations. A parallel is made with the incorrect restriction of to relatively prime integers in centred cells.

Keywords: direction indices; Miller indices; centred cells.

### 1. Introduction

A misunderstanding frequently showing up in the crystallographic textbooks states that *a*), this is true only when a primitive is adopted, whereas in the case of multiple unit cells this condition no longer applies and is replaced by characteristic relations between that correspond to the integral reflection conditions.

Miller indices and

are contravariant, which means that under a certain transformation, like a change of basis, they are transformed by matrices that are the inverse of one another. We can therefore expect that the different restrictions applying to as a function of the type of adopted find a counterpart in similar restrictions on the This evidence seems generally overlooked and may result in serious mistakes in crystallographic calculations.Whereas a clear, although not always correct, definition of *International Tables for Crystallography*, probably because the concept is considered trivial. As we are going to show, this is actually not the case.

Mauguin (1924) defined rational directions through the equation (in the original notation)

(p. 11) and used the symbol [*hjk*] (today [*uvw*]) to represent the direction corresponding to the equation above. He explicitly stated that *h*, *j* and *k* are integers. However, the unit cells adopted by Mauguin are all primitive, which justifies the restriction.

In a similar way, Buerger, in his book *Elementary Crystallography* (Buerger, 1956), defined the [*uvw*] by taking a line passing through the origin as a linear combination of three non-coplanar vectors:

(p. 18). Like Mauguin before him, Buerger defined the three integers *uvw* as indices of the line defined by the vector equation above. He stated that *uvw* must not have common factors because `it is customary to designate a line by the use of the three **smallest** permissible indices' (our emphasis). The geometric meaning of this statement is that as indices [*uvw*] we have to take the coordinates *uvw* of the first lattice node along that direction after the origin. These coordinates, however, are always integers only if the is primitive, whereas this is no longer true in the case of centred cells. For example, the first lattice node along the positive diagonal of a *C*-centred is , , 0 so that, rigorously speaking, the indices of that direction should be [0], or [110], and not [110], as would be the case for a primitive In fact, to indicate that direction as [110] implicitly means that the first lattice node along it has coordinates 1, 1, 0, whereas these are the coordinates of the second lattice node. Quite interestingly, the restriction to integer values is not present in Buerger's book *X-ray Crystallography* (Buerger, 1942, p. 7), where the equation of the `rational lattice direction' **OP** from the origin *O* to a point *P* is written vectorially already in modern notation as

The absence of restriction to integer values is consistent with the analysis of the information that can be obtained from an X-ray diffraction pattern which follows, where integral

suggest the use of centred cells.It is usually implicitly understood that the fractional factor common to

( in our example above) is omitted for the sake of simplicity. This does not normally result in any problem as long as the direction is considered as stand-alone; however, when a change of basis is applied, as is very often necessary in theoretical and experimental work (in the study of phase transitions, derivative structures, group–subgroup relations and so on), this apparently innocent simplification may lead to some serious confusion and potentially to wrong results.### 2. Effects of change of basis on the representation of lattice elements

Let (**abc**) be the basis vectors used to describe a certain and let us suppose that for a certain purpose we want to describe it in a different basis (**a**′**b**′**c**′) with the origin in common.^{1} Let **P** be the matrix relating the two bases; the *i*th column of the **P** matrix gives the components of the *i*th vector of the new basis in terms of the old basis:

The corresponding transformation of

and is obtained as follows:As an example, let us suppose we want to describe in a *I* centred. The transformation matrix is the following (Wondratschek *et al.*, 2016):

Let us consider the family of lattice planes with *h* = *k* = *l* and the direction with indices *u* = *v* = *w*. If we assume, as often incorrectly done, that *h* = 1 and *u* = 1, *i.e*. that the Miller and are (111) and [111], in the primitive they transform to () and [222], respectively. This result is inconsistent because (1) the become fractional, contrary to the definition, and (2) the lattice node with coordinates 2, 2, 2 is the second one after the origin along the direction *u* = *v* = *w*, and these coordinates do have a common factor, contrary to the definition. The correct indices in the primitive are, quite obviously, (111) and [111], respectively. By applying the inverse transformation, we obtain the correct indices in the *I*-centred *i.e*. (222) and [], respectively.

One could object that

and can be systematically simplified to avoid having common factors or fractional values. Such a simplification is actually a source of potential problems and errors in some data treatment. In fact, there are two points to consider here:(1) Simplification of ); interested readers are referred to that publication].

leads to inconsistencies, namely the density of lattice planes as obtained from the becomes incorrect and the very straightforward relation between and is lost [this has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Nespolo, 2015(2) Simplification of

leads to overestimating the periodicity along that direction and obtaining wrong results about the built on it, as we are going to show in the next section.### 3. An example of errors induced by incorrect restrictions on direction indices

In a number of situations we need to find and characterize a )]. The correct indexing of lattice planes and directions is mandatory to avoid oversights and mistakes. We illustrate the potential problems through an example worked out in detail.

(based on a of the original lattice): phase transitions with a group–subgroup relation, derivative structures, [see the general approach described by Müller (2013Sulfur crystallizes in *Fddd* with cell parameters *a* = 10.4646, *b* = 12.8660, *c* = 24.4860 Å (Rettig & Trotter, 1987). Three twin laws are known in the literature; below we analyse by reflection on (101). The of the is built on this plane and the lattice direction quasi-perpendicular to it, which, according to the procedure described by Nespolo (2015*b*), would be [501] if the simplification described in the previous section is adopted. In fact, the direction perpendicular to (*hkl*) is [*hkl*]*, which in corresponds to an irrational direction obtained as

where **G*** is the in By inserting the cell parameters and the from the literature, we obtain

after normalization with respect to the smallest nonzero value. The closest rational directions corresponding to a reasonable *geminography*: Nespolo & Ferraris, 2006), of which the former is clearly the best description of the twin.

Actually, neither (101) nor [501] is the correct description of the lattice elements defining the *h*0*h*) in an *F*-centred cell has intercepts on the **a** and **c** axes at , not 1, so that the correct are (202). Furthermore, the direction that passes through the origin and the lattice node 5, 0, 1 actually passes also through the lattice node , 0, so that the are [501]. If we blindly compute the cell parameters of the of the basis of the simplified Miller and we get a wrong result and a gross overestimation of the In fact, the transformation matrix in equation (1) contains the two shortest directions in the twin plane and the direction quasi-perpendicular to it, namely [501], [010] and [01], arranged so as to obtain a positive determinant, *i.e*. 6 in this case. Knowing that the of the individual crystal is *F* centred, that the based on (101) and [501] is *B* centred (see Fig. 1 and discussion below), and that the is *n* = det(**P**)*f*_{i}/*f*_{T}, where *f* is the unit-cell centring factor of the corresponding cell (Nespolo, 2016), one would be tempted to conclude that the is *n* = 6 × 4/2 = 12. The mistake becomes evident on inspection of Fig. 1, which shows 12 unit cells of sulfur in the intervals *u* = [−1, 5], *v* = [0, 1], *w* = [0, 2]. The obtained by the transformation above is shown in black and is *B* centred, whereas the correct of the is shown in red and is *I* centred. The first three planes of the (202) family, starting from the one passing through the origin, are shown in grey: because the is *F* centred, the first plane after the origin passes though the lattice nodes centring the *A* and *C* faces, so that its intersections with the **a** and **c** axes are , not 1; furthermore, the shortest directions in the plane of this family through the origin pass though the lattice nodes , 0, and 0, 1, 0, so that the shortest in-plane directions have indices [01] and [010], not [01] and [010]. The basis vectors of the are therefore obtained by the transformation **a**′ = 5**a**/2 + **c**/2; **b**′ = **b**; **c**′ = −**a**/2 + **c**/2, *i.e*. the matrix in equation (4) is (, 0, ; 0, 1, 0; , 0, ), read by columns, whose determinant is 1.5. The is *n* = 1.5 × 4/2 = 3.

The calculation of the parameters characterizing the , a change of basis from a centred to a primitive does not correct the mistakes in Miller and if these are incorrectly expressed in the original cell: it simply makes the error more evident, because in a primitive are indeed relatively prime and are integers. The condition that the take integer values in a primitive is not fulfilled if the corresponding indices are inconsistently expressed in the starting in particular when they are unduly forced to fulfil the same restrictions that hold only when the is primitive.

is usually performed in the primitive but in principle this does not ensure avoidance of mistakes coming from approximations of the Miller and In fact, as shown in §2### 4. Conclusions

The simplification to relatively prime integers which is usually applied to Miller and *a*), we have shown that the same type of problem concerns also crystallographic these are actually restricted to rational values. We hope that our analysis will help avoid mistakes and oversights by crystallographic software developers and the end users of such software and draw the attention of crystallography lecturers to the necessity to make students well aware of the consequences of adopting centred cells, which may seem trivial but are actually too often overlooked.

### Footnotes

^{1}A shift of the origin would not have a visible effect in what follows: for this reason we can limit our treatment to the case of a common origin without losing generality.

### Acknowledgements

Critical remarks by three anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.

### References

Buerger, M. J. (1942). *X-ray Crystallography.* New York, London: John Wiley and Sons. Google Scholar

Buerger, M. J. (1956). *Elementary Crystallography.* New York, London: John Wiley and Sons. Google Scholar

Mauguin, C. (1924). *La Structure des Cristaux Déterminée au Moyen des Rayons X.* Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Google Scholar

Momma, K. & Izumi, F. (2011). *J. Appl. Cryst.* **44**, 1272–1276. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar

Müller, U. (2013). *Symmetry Relationships between Crystal Structures.* IUCr/Oxford Science Publications. Google Scholar

Nespolo, M. (2015*a*). *J. Appl. Cryst.* **48**, 1290–1298. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar

Nespolo, M. (2015*b*). *Cryst. Res. Technol.* **50**, 362–371. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar

Nespolo, M. (2016). *Z. Kristallogr.* **231**, 553–560. CAS Google Scholar

Nespolo, M. & Ferraris, G. (2006). *Acta Cryst.* A**62**, 336–349. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar

Rettig, S. J. & Trotter, J. (1987). *Acta Cryst.* C**43**, 2260–2262. CSD CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar

Wondratschek, H., Aroyo, M. I., Souvignier, B. & Chapuis, G. (2016). *International Tables for Crystallography*, Vol. A, *Space-Group Symmetry*, 6th ed., edited by M. I. Aroyo. Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar

© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.