Converting between Crystallographic Notations: A Simple Guide

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zeta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around converting crystallographic notations, specifically transforming parameters a, b, c, alpha, beta, and gamma into Cartesian components for use in Ewald summation within Gaussian98 calculations. The scope includes technical explanations and mathematical reasoning related to crystallography.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on converting crystallographic parameters into Cartesian coordinates, questioning whether alpha, beta, and gamma are direction cosines.
  • Another participant clarifies that alpha, beta, and gamma are angles, not direction cosines, and requests specific values for the parameters.
  • A participant provides a method for orienting the unit cell along the xyz axes, detailing how to derive the Cartesian components from the given parameters.
  • Further elaboration includes specific equations for calculating the Cartesian components based on the monoclinic unit cell orientation.
  • A participant expresses gratitude for the provided information and calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to convert the crystallographic parameters into Cartesian coordinates, but there is no consensus on the best method or the specifics of the conversion process. Some uncertainty remains regarding the interpretation of angles and their relationship to direction cosines.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the orientation of the unit cell and the application of trigonometric functions, which may depend on the specific crystallographic system being analyzed. The calculations provided are based on a monoclinic unit cell, and the accuracy of the approach may vary with different crystal structures.

zeta
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
Hi Folks;
Trying to run an ewald summation to create a crystal field for a Gaussian98 calculation. Problem is the input file wants crystal translation vectors, but my structure data is in terms of a,b,c alpha beta gamma. It's been a while, how does one go between the two notations? Are the alpha beta gamma the direction cosines?
sorry if this is a stupid question
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe you need to convert a, b, c, alpha, beta, gamma into Cartesian components: a_x, a_y, a_z, b_x,...c_z (9 numbers).

Alpha, beta, gamma are not the direction cosines, they are actual angles. What are your values of a, b, c, alpha, beta, gamma?
 
yes sorry, angles. but they are for the direction cosines, yes?

there are a number of compounds I'm doing NMR EFG and chemical shift tensor calculations on, including kaolinite where a b c alpha beta gamma are 5.1535 8.9419 7.3906 91.926 105.046 89.797

thanks for the interest/help
 
First you need to orient your unit cell along the xyz axes. The standard approach is to put a along x and b in the xy plane. For the above monoclinic unit cell, this gives:
a_x=a
a_y=a_z=0
b_x=b*cos(gamma)
b_y=b*sin(gamma)
b_z=0
c_x=c*cos(beta)
...etc...
it gets tricky from there, but if you draw the picture and do the trig carefully, you can find the other components.

The thing to know is that alpha, beta, gamma are angles between (b,c), (c,a) and (a,b). If the trig proves tricky, use a 3d modeler like autocad to figure out the components.

PS: Don't take this much more than an educated guess. I haven't seen this stuff in ages.
 
hey thanks that's awesome :)
 
Here's the final results of gokul's approach:

a_x=a
a_y=a_z=0

b_x=b*cos(gamma)
b_y=b*sin(gamma)
b_z=0

c_x=c*cos(beta)
c_y=c*[cos(alpha)-cos(gamma)*cos(beta)]/sin(gamma)
c_z=sqrt(c^2-c_x^2-c_y^2)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K