Packing Particles - Understanding Coordination Number & Density

  • Thread starter Thread starter yellowduck
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the relationship between coordination number and density in packing methods, specifically in hexagonal closest, face-centered, and body-centered arrangements. The user initially miscalculated density by incorrectly assigning mass and volume values, leading to confusion about the efficiency of body-centered packing. A detailed explanation of the face-centered cubic (FCC) lattice is provided, clarifying how to calculate the number of atoms per unit cell and the relationship between atomic radius and unit cell size. The correct packing density formula is derived, demonstrating that the packing density for FCC is approximately 74%. This highlights the importance of accurately calculating atomic contributions and unit cell dimensions to understand packing efficiency.
yellowduck
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am doing a lab on packing methods. Hexagonal closest, face-centred and body-centred.

I had no trouble drawing the diagrams for these and and determining cordination numbers and seeing which is more efficient. However I am having trouble explaining the relationship between coordination number and density. It gives mass/volume as the definition of density.

What I did was place one unit in an imaginary box - assign each atom a value of 1 mass and divide by volume. This gives me a higher density for body-centred which I know is wrong.

Can anyone help explain to me what I am doing wrong?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok this seems to help but I still don't quite have it.

Lets do a test on say cubic and give an imagingary radius of 1 for each of the 13 units
V = (4/3)Pi r^3
= 1.33 x 3.14 x 1
= 4.2 x 13 units = 54.6 units of volume in 13 spheres

Sphere volume (radius would be 3)
V= (4/3)pi r^3
= 1.33 x 3.14 x 27
= 113 units

54.6 / 113 = 48.3?? (I have read that it is 74% so I did something wrong but can't put my finger on it)
 
Where are you getting 13 and 3 from? Your approach - which I can't say I understand - appears to be wrong. Here's how you do it.

You have an FCC lattice. Look at the unit cell - it has 8 corner atoms and 6 face centers. Each corner atom is shared by 8 neighboring unit cells and each face center atom is shared by two. So the total number of atoms per unit cell in the FCC lattice = (8*1/8) + (6*1/2) = 1+3 = 4

Nearest neighbor atoms ("touching" each other) may be found along a face diagonal. If the side of the unit cell is 'a', the length of the face diagonal is a*sqrt(2) = about 1.4a. Going from one corner to another, along the face diagonal, you encounter the radius of the first corner atom, then the diameter of the face center atom, and finally the radius of the second corner atom. In terms of the atomic radius, the length of the face diagonal is then r + 2r + r. So, we have 1.4a = 4r or roughly a = 2.83r

That establishes a relationship between the sphere radius and the unit cell size. Next you say that the unit cell volume is a^3, and the volume occupied by spheres is 4*(4/3)*pi*r^3. The 4 comes from the number of atoms per unit cell, calculated abouve. The packing density is then the ratio of the second volume to the first.

PD = [(16/3)*pi*r^3]/[a^3] = 16.75*r^3/a^3 = [16.75]/[2.83^3] = 16.75/22.62 = 0.74
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top