BCC Metals: An Anomaly in Atomic Packing Factor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raziel2701
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metals
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the atomic packing factor of body-centered cubic (BCC) metals compared to face-centered cubic (FCC) and hexagonal close-packed (HCP) structures. Participants explore the reasons for the existence of BCC structures, particularly in transition metals, and consider factors such as magnetic characteristics and electron configurations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why BCC structures exist if FCC and HCP have higher atomic packing factors.
  • Others propose that nature may favor high packing factors for stability or efficiency.
  • One participant lists transition metals with BCC structures, noting their electron configurations and magnetic ordering, suggesting a link between magnetic characteristics and the stability of BCC structures.
  • Another participant speculates that the exchange interaction related to magnetic ordering may lower the energy of BCC structures compared to FCC structures.
  • Some participants highlight that BCC metals are primarily transition metals, but also mention that alkali metals and certain alkaline earth metals (barium and radium) exhibit BCC structures.
  • There is a discussion about the significance of the packing difference between BCC and FCC structures, with some questioning if the difference in packing efficiency is substantial.
  • One participant mentions that BCC structures may arise from directed covalent bonds involving d-orbitals.
  • Another participant argues that ferromagnetism is a molecular property rather than an elemental property, suggesting that the preferred bonding influences crystal structure.
  • There is a note that in alloys, different atomic diameters can lead to varied crystal structures.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the reasons for the existence of BCC metals, including magnetic characteristics, electron configurations, and bonding influences. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various factors such as magnetic ordering, electron configurations, and the nature of metallic bonds, but do not resolve the implications of these factors on the stability of BCC structures. There are also references to specific texts on solid state theory that may provide additional context.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for those interested in materials science, solid state physics, and the properties of metals, particularly in understanding the complexities of crystal structures and their influences.

Raziel2701
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
If FCC and HCP are the ones with the highest atomic packing factor, why would there be metals with BCC structures?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Why does nature want a high packing factor?
 
It seems that all the metals that have a bcc structure are transition metals. I list them here, together with their electron configuration, and their magnetic ordering:

  1. 26Fe [Ar] 3d6 4s2, ferromagnetic
  2. 24Cr [Ar] 4s1 3d5, antiferromagnetic (SDW)
  3. 74W [Xe] 4f14 5d4 6s2, paramagnetic
  4. 41Nb [Kr] 4d4 5s1, paramagnetic

I mention magnetic ordering, because I saw iron among them, and whenever I see iron, I think of ferromagnetism. Also, notice that the magnetic transition temperature (1043 K) is very close to a structural phase transition (fcc -> bcc, bcc existing at lower temperatures) temperature 1185 K.

I would speculate that the exchange interaction, usually responsible for magnetic ordering, plays a significant role in these metals, and lowers the energy in a bcc structure, than an fcc structure.
 
So the reason for the existence of BCC metals has to do with magnetic characteristics? Ok that is definitely a good thing to think about. Unfortunately I don't know much about those. In any case, thanks for showing me this.
 
Raziel2701 said:
So the reason for the existence of BCC metals has to do with magnetic characteristics? Ok that is definitely a good thing to think about. Unfortunately I don't know much about those. In any case, thanks for showing me this.
Not magnetic characteristics, but probably electron configuration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_(crystal_structure)#Table

The bcc atoms tend to have higher strength and higher melting temperatures than others in their respective periods.
 
It seems that all the metals that have a bcc structure are transition metals.

Actually the alkali metals (group1) and barium and radium(group2) also have a BCC structure.

I echo Vanadium's comment and further ask is the packing difference (68 as opposed to 74%) so very large?
 
Last edited:
According to conventional wisdom, BCC crystal structure in these elements is due to directed covalent bonds involving the d-orbitals.
 
Ferromagnetism is not a property of the elements. It's a molecular property.

Even in a metal, the bonds depend on the underlying electronic shells. That's why diamond, silicon and germanium, which have as many valence electrons and the same crystal structure, have different conduction band structure.

So a reason can be: because the preferred bonds of the element influence the crystal structure. In other words, metallic bonds are not just a matter of packing spheres in a sea of electrons.

You spoke about pure metals, didn't you? Because in alloys, different atom diameters can favour varied crystals.
 
Studiot said:
Actually the alkali metals (group1) and barium and radium(group2) also have a BCC structure.

I echo Vanadium's comment and further ask is the packing difference (68 as opposed to 74%) so very large?
Correct.
The alkali metals are discussed in many texts on solid state theory like Ashcroft and Mermin.
You also have to take in mind that in BCC, an atom has 8+6 nearest neighbours while in the closest packed structure only 12.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
79K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K