International
Tables for Crystallography Volume B Reciprocal space Edited by U. Shmueli © International Union of Crystallography 2006 |
International Tables for Crystallography (2006). Vol. B. ch. 1.2, pp. 10-24
https://doi.org/10.1107/97809553602060000550 Chapter 1.2. The structure factor
aDepartment of Chemistry, Natural Sciences & Mathematics Complex, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14260-3000, USA This chapter summarizes the mathematical development of the structure-factor formalism. It starts with the definition of the structure factor appropriate for X-ray and neutron scattering, and includes the derivation of the appropriate expressions. Beyond the isolated-atom case, the atom-centred spherical harmonic (multipole) model is treated in detail. Expressions for thermal motion in the harmonic approximation and for treatments including anharmonicity are given and their relative merits are discussed. Keywords: structure factors; X-ray scattering; magnetic scattering; spherical harmonic expansion; orbital products; temperature factors; rigid-body motion; cumulant expansion; Gram–Charlier series; one-particle potential model. |
The structure factor is the central concept in structure analysis by diffraction methods. Its modulus is called the structure amplitude. The structure amplitude is a function of the indices of the set of scattering planes h, k and l, and is defined as the amplitude of scattering by the contents of the crystallographic unit cell, expressed in units of scattering. For X-ray scattering, that unit is the scattering by a single electron , while for neutron scattering by atomic nuclei, the unit of scattering length of is commonly used. The complex form of the structure factor means that the phase of the scattered wave is not simply related to that of the incident wave. However, the observable, which is the scattered intensity, must be real. It is proportional to the square of the scattering amplitude (see, e.g., Lipson & Cochran, 1966).
The structure factor is directly related to the distribution of scattering matter in the unit cell which, in the X-ray case, is the electron distribution, time-averaged over the vibrational modes of the solid.
In this chapter we will discuss structure-factor expressions for X-ray and neutron scattering, and, in particular, the modelling that is required to obtain an analytical description in terms of the features of the electron distribution and the vibrational displacement parameters of individual atoms. We concentrate on the most basic developments; for further details the reader is referred to the cited literature.
The total scattering of X-rays contains both elastic and inelastic components. Within the first-order Born approximation (Born, 1926) it has been treated by several authors (e.g. Waller & Hartree, 1929; Feil, 1977) and is given by the expression where is the classical Thomson scattering of an X-ray beam by a free electron, which is equal to for an unpolarized beam of unit intensity, ψ is the n-electron space-wavefunction expressed in the 3n coordinates of the electrons located at and the integration is over the coordinates of all electrons. S is the scattering vector of length .
The coherent elastic component of the scattering, in units of the scattering of a free electron, is given by
If integration is performed over all coordinates but those of the jth electron, one obtains after summation over all electrons where is the electron distribution. The scattering amplitude is then given by or where is the Fourier transform operator.
In a crystal of infinite size, is a three-dimensional periodic function, as expressed by the convolution where n, m and p are integers, and δ is the Dirac delta function.
Thus, according to the Fourier convolution theorem, which gives
Expression (1.2.3.3) is valid for a crystal with a very large number of unit cells, in which particle-size broadening is negligible. Furthermore, it does not account for multiple scattering of the beam within the crystal. Because of the appearance of the delta function, (1.2.3.3) implies that with .
The first factor in (1.2.3.3), the scattering amplitude of one unit cell, is defined as the structure factor F:
To a reasonable approximation, the unit-cell density can be described as a superposition of isolated, spherical atoms located at . Substitution in (1.2.3.4) gives or , the spherical atomic scattering factor, or form factor, is the Fourier transform of the spherically averaged atomic density , in which the polar coordinate r is relative to the nuclear position. can be written as (James, 1982) where is the zero-order spherical Bessel function.
represents either the static or the dynamic density of atom j. In the former case, the effect of thermal motion, treated in Section 1.2.9 and following, is not included in the expression.
When scattering is treated in the second-order Born approximation, additional terms occur which are in particular of importance for X-ray wavelengths with energies close to absorption edges of atoms, where the participation of free and bound excited states in the scattering process becomes very important, leading to resonance scattering. Inclusion of such contributions leads to two extra terms, which are both wavelength- and scattering-angle-dependent:
The treatment of resonance effects is beyond the scope of this chapter. We note however (a) that to a reasonable approximation the S-dependence of j′ and j″ can be neglected, (b) that j′ and j″ are not independent, but related through the Kramers–Kronig transformation, and (c) that in an anisotropic environment the atomic scattering factor becomes anisotropic, and accordingly is described as a tensor property. Detailed descriptions and appropriate references can be found in Materlick et al. (1994) and in Section 4.2.6 of IT C (2004).
The structure-factor expressions (1.2.4.2) can be simplified when the crystal class contains non-trivial symmetry elements. For example, when the origin of the unit cell coincides with a centre of symmetry the sine term in (1.2.4.2b) cancels when the contributions from the symmetry-related atoms are added, leading to the expression where the summation is over the unique half of the unit cell only.
Further simplifications occur when other symmetry elements are present. They are treated in Chapter 1.4 , which also contains a complete list of symmetry-specific structure-factor expressions valid in the spherical-atom isotropic-temperature-factor approximation.
The scattering of neutrons by atomic nuclei is described by the atomic scattering length b, related to the total cross section by the expression . At present, there is no theory of nuclear forces which allows calculation of the scattering length, so that experimental values are to be used. Two types of nuclei can be distinguished (Squires, 1978). In the first type, the scattering is a resonance phenomenon and is associated with the formation of a compound nucleus (consisting of the original nucleus plus a neutron) with an energy close to that of an excited state. In the second type, the compound nucleus is not near an excited state and the scattering length is essentially real and independent of the energy of the incoming neutron. In either case, b is independent of the Bragg angle θ, unlike the X-ray form factor, since the nuclear dimensions are very small relative to the wavelength of thermal neutrons.
The scattering length is not the same for different isotopes of an element. A random distribution of isotopes over the sites occupied by that element leads to an incoherent contribution, such that effectively . Similarly for nuclei with non-zero spin, a spin incoherent scattering occurs as the spin states are, in general, randomly distributed over the sites of the nuclei.
For free or loosely bound nuclei, the scattering length is modified by , where M is the mass of the nucleus and m is the mass of the neutron. This effect is of consequence only for the lightest elements. It can, in particular, be of significance for hydrogen atoms. With this in mind, the structure-factor expression for elastic scattering can be written as by analogy to (1.2.4.2b).
The interaction between the magnetic moments of the neutron and the unpaired electrons in solids leads to magnetic scattering. The total elastic scattering including both the nuclear and magnetic contributions is given by where the unit vector describes the polarization vector for the neutron spin, is given by (1.2.4.2b) and Q is defined by is the vector field describing the electron-magnetization distribution and is a unit vector parallel to H.
Q is thus proportional to the projection of M onto a direction orthogonal to H in the plane containing M and H. The magnitude of this projection depends on , where α is the angle between Q and H, which prevents magnetic scattering from being a truly three-dimensional probe. If all moments are collinear, as may be achieved in paramagnetic materials by applying an external field, and for the maximum signal (H orthogonal to M), (1.2.5.2a) becomes and (1.2.5.1a) gives and for neutrons parallel and antiparallel to , respectively.
1.2.6. Effect of bonding on the atomic electron density within the spherical-atom approximation: the kappa formalism
A first improvement beyond the isolated-atom formalism is to allow for changes in the radial dependence of the atomic electron distribution.
Such changes may be due to electronegativity differences which lead to the transfer of electrons between the valence shells of different atoms. The electron transfer introduces a change in the screening of the nuclear charge by the electrons and therefore affects the radial dependence of the atomic electron distribution (Coulson, 1961). A change in radial dependence of the density may also occur in a purely covalent bond, as, for example, in the H2 molecule (Ruedenberg, 1962). It can be expressed as (Coppens et al., 1979), where ρ′ is the modified density and κ is an expansion/contraction parameter, which is > 1 for valence-shell contraction and < 1 for expansion. The factor results from the normalization requirement.
The valence density is usually defined as the outer electron shell from which charge transfer occurs. The inner or core electrons are much less affected by the change in occupancy of the outer shell and, in a reasonable approximation, retain their radial dependence.
The corresponding structure-factor expression is where and are the number of electrons (not necessarily integral) in the core and valence shell, respectively, and the atomic scattering factors and are normalized to one electron. Here and in the following sections, the anomalous-scattering contributions are incorporated in the core scattering.
Even though the spherical-atom approximation is often adequate, atoms in a crystal are in a non-spherical environment; therefore, an accurate description of the atomic electron density requires non-spherical density functions. In general, such density functions can be written in terms of the three polar coordinates r, θ and φ. Under the assumption that the radial and angular parts can be separated, one obtains for the density function:
The angular functions Θ are based on the spherical harmonic functions defined by with , where are the associated Legendre polynomials (see Arfken, 1970).
The real spherical harmonic functions , , are obtained as a linear combination of : and The normalization constants are defined by the conditions which are appropriate for normalization of wavefunctions. An alternative definition is used for charge-density basis functions: The functions and differ only in the normalization constants. For the spherically symmetric function , a population parameter equal to one corresponds to the function being populated by one electron. For the non-spherical functions with , a population parameter equal to one implies that one electron has shifted from the negative to the positive lobes of the function.
The functions and can be expressed in Cartesian coordinates, such that and where the are Cartesian functions. The relations between the various definitions of the real spherical harmonic functions are summarized by in which the direction of the arrows and the corresponding conversion factors define expressions of the type (1.2.7.4) . The expressions for with are listed in Table 1.2.7.1, together with the normalization factors and .
|
The spherical harmonic functions are mutually orthogonal and form a complete set, which, if taken to sufficiently high order, can be used to describe any arbitrary angular function.
The spherical harmonic functions are often referred to as multipoles since each represents the components of the charge distribution , which gives non-zero contribution to the integral , where is an electrostatic multipole moment. Terms with increasing l are referred to as monopolar , dipolar , quadrupolar , octapolar , hexadecapolar , triacontadipolar and hexacontatetrapolar .
Site-symmetry restrictions for the real spherical harmonics as given by Kara & Kurki-Suonio (1981) are summarized in Table 1.2.7.2.
|
In cubic space groups, the spherical harmonic functions as defined by equations (1.2.7.2) are no longer linearly independent. The appropriate basis set for this symmetry consists of the `Kubic Harmonics' of Von der Lage & Bethe (1947). Some low-order terms are listed in Table 1.2.7.3. Both wavefunction and density-function normalization factors are specified in Table 1.2.7.3.
|
A related basis set of angular functions has been proposed by Hirshfeld (1977). They are of the form , where is the angle with a specified set of polar axes. The Hirshfeld functions are identical to a sum of spherical harmonics with , , for , as shown elsewhere (Hirshfeld, 1977).
The radial functions can be selected in different manners. Several choices may be made, such as where the coefficient may be selected by examination of products of hydrogenic orbitals which give rise to a particular multipole (Hansen & Coppens, 1978). Values for the exponential coefficient may be taken from energy-optimized coefficients for isolated atoms available in the literature (Clementi & Raimondi, 1963). A standard set has been proposed by Hehre et al. (1969). In the bonded atom, such values are affected by changes in nuclear screening due to migrations of charge, as described in part by equation (1.2.6.1).
Other alternatives are: or where L is a Laguerre polynomial of order n and degree .
In summary, in the multipole formalism the atomic density is described by in which the leading terms are those of the kappa formalism [expressions (1.2.6.1), (1.2.6.2)]; the subscript p is either + or −.
The expansion in (1.2.7.6) is frequently truncated at the hexadecapolar level. For atoms at positions of high site symmetry the first allowed functions may occur at higher l values. For trigonally bonded atoms in organic molecules the terms are often found to be the most significantly populated deformation functions.
The aspherical-atom form factor is obtained by substitution of (1.2.7.6) in expression (1.2.4.3a): In order to evaluate the integral, the scattering operator must be written as an expansion of products of spherical harmonic functions. In terms of the complex spherical harmonic functions, the appropriate expression is (Weiss & Freeman, 1959; Cohen-Tannoudji et al., 1977)
The Fourier transform of the product of a complex spherical harmonic function with normalization and an arbitrary radial function follows from the orthonormality properties of the spherical harmonic functions, and is given by where is the lth-order spherical Bessel function (Arfken, 1970), and θ and φ, β and γ are the angular coordinates of r and S, respectively.
For the Fourier transform of the real spherical harmonic functions, the scattering operator is expressed in terms of the real spherical harmonics: which leads to Since occurs on both sides, the expression is independent of the normalization selected. Therefore, for the Fourier transform of the density functions
In (1.2.7.8b) and (1.2.7.8c), , the Fourier–Bessel transform, is the radial integral defined as of which in expression (1.2.4.3) is a special case. The functions for Hartree–Fock valence shells of the atoms are tabulated in scattering-factor tables (IT IV, 1974). Expressions for the evaluation of using the radial function (1.2.7.5a–c) have been given by Stewart (1980) and in closed form for (1.2.7.5a) by Avery & Watson (1977) and Su & Coppens (1990). The closed-form expressions are listed in Table 1.2.7.4.
|
Expressions (1.2.7.8) show that the Fourier transform of a direct-space spherical harmonic function is a reciprocal-space spherical harmonic function with the same l, m, or, in other words, the spherical harmonic functions are Fourier-transform invariant.
The scattering factors of the aspherical density functions in the multipole expansion (1.2.7.6) are thus given by
The reciprocal-space spherical harmonic functions in this expression are identical to the functions given in Table 1.2.7.1, except for the replacement of the direction cosines x, y and z by the direction cosines of the scattering vector S.
If the wavefunction is written as a sum over normalized Slater determinants, each representing an antisymmetrized combination of occupied molecular orbitals expressed as linear combinations of atomic orbitals , i.e. , the electron density is given by (Stewart, 1969a) with . The coefficients are the populations of the orbital product density functions and are given by
For a multi-Slater determinant wavefunction the electron density is expressed in terms of the occupied natural spin orbitals, leading again to (1.2.8.2) but with non-integer values for the coefficients .
The summation (1.2.8.1) consists of one- and two-centre terms for which and are centred on the same or on different nuclei, respectively. The latter represent the overlap density, which is only significant if and have an appreciable value in the same region of space.
If the atomic basis consists of hydrogenic type s, p, d, f, … orbitals, the basis functions may be written as or which gives for corresponding values of the orbital products and respectively, where it has been assumed that the radial function depends only on l.
Because the spherical harmonic functions form a complete set, their products can be expressed as a linear combination of spherical harmonics. The coefficients in this expansion are the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients (Condon & Shortley, 1957), defined by or the equivalent definition The vanish, unless is even, and .
The corresponding expression for is with and for , and and for and .
Values of C and for are given in Tables 1.2.8.1 and 1.2.8.2. They are valid for the functions and with normalization and .
|
|
By using (1.2.8.5a) or (1.2.8.5c), the one-centre orbital products are expressed as a sum of spherical harmonic functions. It follows that the one-centre orbital product density basis set is formally equivalent to the multipole description, both in real and in reciprocal space. To obtain the relation between orbital products and the charge-density functions, the right-hand side of (1.2.8.5c) has to be multiplied by the ratio of the normalization constants, as the wavefunctions and charge-density functions are normalized in a different way as described by (1.2.7.3a) and (1.2.7.3b). Thus where . The normalization constants and are given in Table 1.2.7.1, while the coefficients in the expressions (1.2.8.6) are listed in Table 1.2.8.3.
|
Fourier transform of the electron density as described by (1.2.8.1) requires explicit expressions for the two-centre orbital product scattering. Such expressions are described in the literature for both Gaussian (Stewart, 1969b) and Slater-type (Bentley & Stewart, 1973; Avery & Ørmen, 1979) atomic orbitals. The expressions can also be used for Hartree–Fock atomic functions, as expansions in terms of Gaussian- (Stewart, 1969b, 1970; Stewart & Hehre, 1970; Hehre et al., 1970) and Slater-type (Clementi & Roetti, 1974) functions are available for many atoms.
Since the crystal is subject to vibrational oscillations, the observed elastic scattering intensity is an average over all normal modes of the crystal. Within the Born–Oppenheimer approximation, the theoretical electron density should be calculated for each set of nuclear coordinates. An average can be obtained by taking into account the statistical weight of each nuclear configuration, which may be expressed by the probability distribution function for a set of displacement coordinates .
In general, if is the electron density corresponding to the geometry defined by , the time-averaged electron density is given by
When the crystal can be considered as consisting of perfectly following rigid entities, which may be molecules or atoms, expression (1.2.9.1) simplifies:
In the approximation that the atomic electrons perfectly follow the nuclear motion, one obtains The Fourier transform of this convolution is the product of the Fourier transforms of the individual functions: Thus , the atomic temperature factor, is the Fourier transform of the probability distribution .
1.2.10. The vibrational probability distribution and its Fourier transform in the harmonic approximation
For a harmonic oscillator, the probability distribution averaged over all populated energy levels is a Gaussian, centred at the equilibrium position. For the three-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator, the distribution is where is the mean-square displacement in any direction.
The corresponding trivariate normal distribution to be used for anisotropic harmonic motion is, in tensor notation, Here σ is the variance–covariance matrix, with covariant components, and is the determinant of the inverse of σ. Summation over repeated indices has been assumed. The corresponding equation in matrix notation is where the superscript T indicates the transpose.
The characteristic function, or Fourier transform, of is or With the change of variable , (1.2.10.3a) becomes
The treatment of rigid-body motion of molecules or molecular fragments was developed by Cruickshank (1956) and expanded into a general theory by Schomaker & Trueblood (1968). The theory has been described by Johnson (1970b) and by Dunitz (1979). The latter reference forms the basis for the following treatment.
The most general motions of a rigid body consist of rotations about three axes, coupled with translations parallel to each of the axes. Such motions correspond to screw rotations. A libration around a vector , with length corresponding to the magnitude of the rotation, results in a displacement , such that with or in tensor notation, assuming summation over repeated indices, where the permutation operator equals +1 for i, j, k a cyclic permutation of the indices 1, 2, 3, or −1 for a non-cyclic permutation, and zero if two or more indices are equal. For , for example, only the and terms occur. Addition of a translational displacement gives
When a rigid body undergoes vibrations the displacements vary with time, so suitable averages must be taken to derive the mean-square displacements. If the librational and translational motions are independent, the cross products between the two terms in (1.2.11.4) average to zero and the elements of the mean-square displacement tensor of atom n, , are given by where the coefficients and are the elements of the libration tensor and the translation tensor , respectively. Since pairs of terms such as and correspond to averages over the same two scalar quantities, the and tensors are symmetrical.
If a rotation axis is correctly oriented, but incorrectly positioned, an additional translation component perpendicular to the rotation axes is introduced. The rotation angle and the parallel component of the translation are invariant to the position of the axis, but the perpendicular component is not. This implies that the tensor is unaffected by any assumptions about the position of the libration axes, whereas the tensor depends on the assumptions made concerning the location of the axes.
The quadratic correlation between librational and translational motions can be allowed for by including in (1.2.11.5) cross terms of the type , or, with (1.2.11.3), which leads to the explicit expressions such as
The products of the type are the components of an additional tensor, , which unlike the tensors and is unsymmetrical, since is different from . The terms involving elements of may be grouped as or As the diagonal elements occur as differences in this expression, a constant may be added to each of the diagonal terms without changing the observational equations. In other words, the trace of is indeterminate.
In terms of the and tensors, the observational equations are The arrays and involve the atomic coordinates , and are listed in Table 1.2.11.1. Equations (1.2.11.9) for each of the atoms in the rigid body form the observational equations, from which the elements of and can be derived by a linear least-squares procedure. One of the diagonal elements of must be fixed in advance or some other suitable constraint applied because of the indeterminacy of . It is common practice to set equal to zero. There are thus eight elements of to be determined, as well as the six each of and , for a total of 20 variables. A shift of origin leaves invariant, but it intermixes and .
|
If the origin is located at a centre of symmetry, for each atom at r with vibration tensor there will be an equivalent atom at −r with the same vibration tensor. When the observational equations for these two atoms are added, the terms involving elements of disappear since they are linear in the components of r. The other terms, involving elements of the and tensors, are simply doubled, like the components.
The physical meaning of the and tensor elements is as follows. is the mean-square amplitude of translational vibration in the direction of the unit vector l with components along the Cartesian axes and is the mean-square amplitude of libration about an axis in this direction. The quantity represents the mean correlation between libration about the axis l and translation parallel to this axis. This quantity, like , depends on the choice of origin, although the sum of the two quantities is independent of the origin.
The non-symmetrical tensor can be written as the sum of a symmetric tensor with elements and a skew-symmetric tensor with elements . Expressed in terms of principal axes, consists of three principal screw correlations . Positive and negative screw correlations correspond to opposite senses of helicity. Since an arbitrary constant may be added to all three correlation terms, only the differences between them can be determined from the data.
The skew-symmetric part is equivalent to a vector with components , involving correlations between a libration and a perpendicular translation. The components of can be reduced to zero, and made symmetric, by a change of origin. It can be shown that the origin shift that symmetrizes also minimizes the trace of . In terms of the coordinate system based on the principal axes of , the required origin shifts are in which the carets indicate quantities referred to the principal axis system.
The description of the averaged motion can be simplified further by shifting to three generally non-intersecting libration axes, one each for each principal axis of . Shifts of the axis in the and directions by respectively, annihilate the and terms of the symmetrized tensor and simultaneously effect a further reduction in (the presuperscript denotes the axis that is shifted, the subscript the direction of the shift component). Analogous equations for displacements of the and axes are obtained by permutation of the indices. If all three axes are appropriately displaced, only the diagonal terms of remain. Referred to the principal axes of , they represent screw correlations along these axes and are independent of origin shifts.
The elements of the reduced are
The resulting description of the average rigid-body motion is in terms of six independently distributed instantaneous motions – three screw librations about non-intersecting axes (with screw pitches given by etc.) and three translations. The parameter set consists of three libration and three translation amplitudes, six angles of orientation for the principal axes of and , six coordinates of axis displacement, and three screw pitches, one of which has to be chosen arbitrarily, again for a total of 20 variables.
Since diagonal elements of enter into the expression for , the indeterminacy of introduces a corresponding indeterminacy in . The constraint is unaffected by the various rotations and translations of the coordinate systems used in the course of the analysis.
The probability distribution (1.2.10.2) is valid in the case of rectilinear harmonic motion. If the deviations from Gaussian shape are not too large, distributions may be used which are expansions with the Gaussian distribution as the leading term. Three such distributions are discussed in the following sections.
The three-dimensional Gram–Charlier expansion, introduced into thermal-motion treatment by Johnson & Levy (1974), is an expansion of a function in terms of the zero and higher derivatives of a normal distribution (Kendall & Stuart, 1958). If is the operator , where is the harmonic distribution, or 3, and the operator is the rth partial derivative . Summation is again implied over repeated indices.
The differential operators D may be eliminated by the use of three-dimensional Hermite polynomials defined, by analogy with the one-dimensional Hermite polynomials, by the expression which gives where the first and second terms have been omitted since they are equivalent to a shift of the mean and a modification of the harmonic term only. The permutations of here, and in the following sections, include all combinations which produce different terms.
The coefficients c, defined by (1.2.12.1) and (1.2.12.2), are known as the quasimoments of the frequency function (Kutznetsov et al., 1960). They are related in a simple manner to the moments of the function (Kendall & Stuart, 1958) and are invariant to permutation of indices. There are 10, 15, 21 and 28 components of c for orders 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The multivariate Hermite polynomials are functions of the elements of and of , and are given in Table 1.2.12.1 for orders (IT IV, 1974; Zucker & Schulz, 1982).
|
The Fourier transform of (1.2.12.3) is given by where is the harmonic temperature factor. is a power-series expansion about the harmonic temperature factor, with even and odd terms, respectively, real and imaginary.
A second statistical expansion which has been used to describe the atomic probability distribution is that of Edgeworth (Kendall & Stuart, 1958; Johnson, 1969). It expresses the function as
Like the moments μ of a distribution, the cumulants κ are descriptive constants. They are related to each other (in the one-dimensional case) by the identity When it is substituted for t, (1.2.12.5b) is the characteristic function, or Fourier transform of (Kendall & Stuart, 1958).
The first two terms in the exponent of (1.2.12.5a) can be omitted if the expansion is around the equilibrium position and the harmonic term is properly described by .
The Fourier transform of (1.2.12.5a) is, by analogy with the left-hand part of (1.2.12.5b) (with t replaced by ), where the first two terms have been omitted. Expression (1.2.12.6) is similar to (1.2.12.4) except that the entire series is in the exponent. Following Schwarzenbach (1986), (1.2.12.6) can be developed in a Taylor series, which gives
This formulation, which is sometimes called the Edgeworth approximation (Zucker & Schulz, 1982), clearly shows the relation to the Gram–Charlier expansion (1.2.12.4), and corresponds to the probability distribution [analogous to (1.2.12.3)]
The relation between the cumulants and the quasimoments are apparent from comparison of (1.2.12.8) and (1.2.12.4):
The sixth- and higher-order cumulants and quasimoments differ. Thus the third-order cumulant contributes not only to the coefficient of , but also to higher-order terms of the probability distribution function. This is also the case for cumulants of higher orders. It implies that for a finite truncation of (1.2.12.6), the probability distribution cannot be represented by a finite number of terms. This is a serious difficulty when a probability distribution is to be derived from an experimental temperature factor of the cumulant type.
When an atom is considered as an independent oscillator vibrating in a potential well , its distribution may be described by Boltzmann statistics. with N, the normalization constant, defined by . The classical expression (1.2.12.10) is valid in the high-temperature limit for which .
Following Dawson (1967) and Willis (1969), the potential function may be expanded in terms of increasing order of products of the contravariant displacement coordinates: The equilibrium condition gives . Substitution into (1.2.12.10) leads to an expression which may be simplified by the assumption that the leading term is the harmonic component represented by : in which etc. and the normalization factor N depends on the level of truncation.
The probability distribution is related to the spherical harmonic expansion. The ten products of the displacement parameters , for example, are linear combinations of the seven octapoles and three dipoles (Coppens, 1980). The thermal probability distribution and the aspherical atom description can be separated only because the latter is essentially confined to the valence shell, while the former applies to all electrons which follow the nuclear motion in the atomic scattering model.
The Fourier transform of the OPP distribution, in a general coordinate system, is (Johnson, 1970a; Scheringer, 1985a) where is the harmonic temperature factor and G represents the Hermite polynomials in reciprocal space.
If the OPP temperature factor is expanded in the coordinate system which diagonalizes , simpler expressions are obtained in which the Hermite polynomials are replaced by products of the displacement coordinates (Dawson et al., 1967; Coppens, 1980; Tanaka & Marumo, 1983).
The relative merits of the Gram–Charlier and Edgeworth expansions have been discussed by Zucker & Schulz (1982), Kuhs (1983), and by Scheringer (1985b). In general, the Gram–Charlier expression is found to be preferable because it gives a better fit in the cases tested, and because its truncation is equivalent in real and reciprocal space. The latter is also true for the one-particle potential model, which is mathematically related to the Gram–Charlier expansion by the interchange of the real- and reciprocal-space expressions. The terms of the OPP model have a specific physical meaning. The model allows prediction of the temperature dependence of the temperature factor (Willis, 1969; Coppens, 1980), provided the potential function itself can be assumed to be temperature independent.
It has recently been shown that the Edgeworth expansion (1.2.12.5a) always has negative regions (Scheringer, 1985b). This implies that it is not a realistic description of a vibrating atom.
In the generalized structure-factor formalism developed by Dawson (1975), the complex nature of both the atomic scattering factor and the generalized temperature factor are taken into account. We write for the atomic scattering factor: and where the subscripts c and a refer to the centrosymmetric and acentric components, respectively. Substitution in (1.2.4.2) gives for the real and imaginary components A and B of and (McIntyre et al., 1980; Dawson, 1967).
Expressions (1.2.13.3) illustrate the relation between valence-density anisotropy and anisotropy of thermal motion.
This chapter summarizes mathematical developments of the structure-factor formalism. The introduction of atomic asphericity into the formalism and the treatment of thermal motion are interlinked. It is important that the complexities of the thermal probability distribution function can often be reduced by very low temperature experimentation. Results obtained with the multipole formalism for atomic asphericity can be used to derive physical properties and d-orbital populations of transition-metal atoms (IT C, 2004). In such applications, the deconvolution of the charge density and the thermal vibrations is essential. This deconvolution is dependent on the adequacy of the models summarized here.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank several of his colleagues who gave invaluable criticism of earlier versions of this manuscript. Corrections and additions were made following comments by P. J. Becker, D. Feil, N. K. Hansen, G. McIntyre, E. N. Maslen, S. Ohba, C. Scheringer and D. Schwarzenbach. Z. Su contributed to the revised version of the manuscript. Support of this work by the US National Science Foundation (CHE8711736 and CHE9317770) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Arfken, G. (1970). Mathematical models for physicists, 2nd ed. New York, London: Academic Press.Google ScholarAvery, J. & Ørmen, P.-J. (1979). Generalized scattering factors and generalized Fourier transforms. Acta Cryst. A35, 849–851.Google Scholar
Avery, J. & Watson, K. J. (1977). Generalized X-ray scattering factors. Simple closed-form expressions for the one-centre case with Slater-type orbitals. Acta Cryst. A33, 679–680.Google Scholar
Bentley, J. & Stewart, R. F. (1973). Two-centre calculations for X-ray scattering. J. Comput. Phys. 11, 127–145.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1926). Quantenmechanik der Stoszvorgänge. Z. Phys. 38, 803.Google Scholar
Clementi, E. & Raimondi, D. L. (1963). Atomic screening constants from SCF functions. J. Chem. Phys. 38, 2686–2689.Google Scholar
Clementi, E. & Roetti, C. (1974). Roothaan–Hartree–Fock atomic wavefunctions. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 14, 177–478.Google Scholar
Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B. & Laloe, F. (1977). Quantum mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Condon, E. V. & Shortley, G. H. (1957). The theory of atomic spectra. London, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppens, P. (1980). Thermal smearing and chemical bonding. In Electron and magnetization densities in molecules and solids, edited by P. J. Becker, pp. 521–544. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Coppens, P., Guru Row, T. N., Leung, P., Stevens, E. D., Becker, P. J. & Yang, Y. W. (1979). Net atomic charges and molecular dipole moments from spherical-atom X-ray refinements, and the relation between atomic charges and shape. Acta Cryst. A35, 63–72.Google Scholar
Coulson, C. A. (1961). Valence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, D. W. J. (1956). The analysis of the anisotropic thermal motion of molecules in crystals. Acta Cryst. 9, 754–756.Google Scholar
Dawson, B. (1967). A general structure factor formalism for interpreting accurate X-ray and neutron diffraction data. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 248, 235–288.Google Scholar
Dawson, B. (1975). Studies of atomic charge density by X-ray and neutron diffraction – a perspective. In Advances in structure research by diffraction methods. Vol. 6, edited by W. Hoppe & R. Mason. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, B., Hurley, A. C. & Maslen, V. W. (1967). Anharmonic vibration in fluorite-structures. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 298, 289–306.Google Scholar
Dunitz, J. D. (1979). X-ray analysis and the structure of organic molecules. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Feil, D. (1977). Diffraction physics. Isr. J. Chem. 16, 103–110.Google Scholar
Hansen, N. K. & Coppens, P. (1978). Testing aspherical atom refinements on small-molecule data sets. Acta Cryst. A34, 909–921.Google Scholar
Hehre, W. J., Ditchfield, R., Stewart, R. F. & Pople, J. A. (1970). Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. IV. Use of Gaussian expansions of Slater-type orbitals. Extension to second-row molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 52, 2769–2773.Google Scholar
Hehre, W. J., Stewart, R. F. & Pople, J. A. (1969). Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. I. Use of Gaussian expansions of Slater-type atomic orbitals. J. Chem. Phys. 51, 2657–2664.Google Scholar
Hirshfeld, F. L. (1977). A deformation density refinement program. Isr. J. Chem. 16, 226–229.Google Scholar
International Tables for Crystallography (2004). Vol. C. Mathematical, physical and chemical tables, edited by E. Prince. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
International Tables for X-ray Crystallography (1974). Vol. IV. Birmingham: Kynoch Press. (Present distributor Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.)Google Scholar
James, R. W. (1982). The optical principles of the diffraction of X-rays. Woodbridge, Connecticut: Oxbow Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. K. (1969). Addition of higher cumulants to the crystallographic structure-factor equation: a generalized treatment for thermal-motion effects. Acta Cryst. A25, 187–194.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. K. (1970a). Series expansion models for thermal motion. ACA Program and Abstracts, 1970 Winter Meeting, Tulane University, p. 60.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. K. (1970b). An introduction to thermal-motion analysis. In Crystallographic computing, edited by F. R. Ahmed, S. R. Hall & C. P. Huber, pp. 207–219. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. K. & Levy, H. A. (1974). Thermal motion analysis using Bragg diffraction data. In International tables for X-ray crystallography (1974), Vol. IV, pp. 311–336. Birmingham: Kynoch Press. (Present distributor Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.)Google Scholar
Kara, M. & Kurki-Suonio, K. (1981). Symmetrized multipole analysis of orientational distributions. Acta Cryst. A37, 201–210.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G. & Stuart, A. (1958). The advanced theory of statistics. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Kuhs, W. F. (1983). Statistical description of multimodal atomic probability structures. Acta Cryst. A39, 148–158.Google Scholar
Kurki-Suonio, K. (1977). Symmetry and its implications. Isr. J. Chem. 16, 115–123.Google Scholar
Kutznetsov, P. I., Stratonovich, R. L. & Tikhonov, V. I. (1960). Theory Probab. Its Appl. (USSR), 5, 80–97.Google Scholar
Lipson, H. & Cochran, W. (1966). The determination of crystal structures. London: Bell.Google Scholar
McIntyre, G. J., Moss, G. & Barnea, Z. (1980). Anharmonic temperature factors of zinc selenide determined by X-ray diffraction from an extended-face crystal. Acta Cryst. A36, 482–490.Google Scholar
Materlik, G., Sparks, C. J. & Fischer, K. (1994). Resonant anomalous X-ray scattering. Theory and applications. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Paturle, A. & Coppens, P. (1988). Normalization factors for spherical harmonic density functions. Acta Cryst. A44, 6–7.Google Scholar
Ruedenberg, K. (1962). The nature of the chemical bond. Phys. Rev. 34, 326–376.Google Scholar
Scheringer, C. (1985a). A general expression for the anharmonic temperature factor in the isolated-atom-potential approach. Acta Cryst. A41, 73–79.Google Scholar
Scheringer, C. (1985b). A deficiency of the cumulant expansion of the anharmonic temperature factor. Acta Cryst. A41, 79–81.Google Scholar
Schomaker, V. & Trueblood, K. N. (1968). On the rigid-body motion of molecules in crystals. Acta Cryst. B24, 63–76.Google Scholar
Schwarzenbach, D. (1986). Private communication.Google Scholar
Squires, G. L. (1978). Introduction to the theory of thermal neutron scattering. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. F. (1969a). Generalized X-ray scattering factors. J. Chem. Phys. 51, 4569–4577.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. F. (1969b). Small Gaussian expansions of atomic orbitals. J. Chem. Phys. 50, 2485–2495.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. F. (1970). Small Gaussian expansions of Slater-type orbitals. J. Chem. Phys. 52, 431–438.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. F. (1980). Electron and magnetization densities in molecules and solids, edited by P. J. Becker, pp. 439–442. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. F. & Hehre, W. J. (1970). Small Gaussian expansions of atomic orbitals: second-row atoms. J. Chem. Phys. 52, 5243–5247.Google Scholar
Su, Z. & Coppens, P. (1990). Closed-form expressions for Fourier– Bessel transforms of Slater-type functions. J. Appl. Cryst. 23, 71–73.Google Scholar
Su, Z. & Coppens, P. (1994). Normalization factors for Kubic harmonic density functions. Acta Cryst. A50, 408–409.Google Scholar
Tanaka, K. & Marumo, F. (1983). Willis formalism of anharmonic temperature factors for a general potential and its application in the least-squares method. Acta Cryst. A39, 631–641.Google Scholar
Von der Lage, F. C. & Bethe, H. A. (1947). A method for obtaining electronic functions and eigenvalues in solids with an application to sodium. Phys. Rev. 71, 612–622.Google Scholar
Waller, I. & Hartree, D. R. (1929). Intensity of total scattering X-rays. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 124, 119–142.Google Scholar
Weiss, R. J. & Freeman, A. J. (1959). X-ray and neutron scattering for electrons in a crystalline field and the determination of outer electron configurations in iron and nickel. J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 10, 147–161.Google Scholar
Willis, B. T. M. (1969). Lattice vibrations and the accurate determination of structure factors for the elastic scattering of X-rays and neutrons. Acta Cryst. A25, 277–300.Google Scholar
Zucker, U. H. & Schulz, H. (1982). Statistical approaches for the treatment of anharmonic motion in crystals. I. A comparison of the most frequently used formalisms of anharmonic thermal vibrations. Acta Cryst. A38, 563–568.Google Scholar