Proving Hexagonal Close Packing c/a Ratio is 1.633

  • Thread starter Thread starter murasame
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the c/a ratio for Hexagonal Close Packing (HCP) is 1.633. A participant expresses confusion over using the Pythagorean theorem to derive the vertical length (c) from a right triangle formed by the diagonal (4R) and base length (2R), resulting in an incorrect ratio of 1.73. Clarification is provided that the vertical plane used does not accurately represent the atomic arrangement in HCP, as the correct calculation involves understanding the geometry of basal planes, which yield the correct ratio of 1.633.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hexagonal Close Packing (HCP) structure
  • Familiarity with Pythagorean theorem applications in three-dimensional geometry
  • Knowledge of atomic arrangements in crystalline structures
  • Basic concepts of unit cells in crystallography
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the geometry of Hexagonal Close Packing (HCP) in detail
  • Learn about basal planes in hexagonal crystals and their significance
  • Explore the derivation of c/a ratios in different crystal structures
  • Investigate the role of atomic models in understanding crystal geometry
USEFUL FOR

Students of materials science, crystallographers, and anyone interested in the geometric properties of crystal structures, particularly those studying Hexagonal Close Packing.

murasame
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I know this has been posted before and I've read the help given but I simply do not understand how to prove Hexagonal Close packing c/a ratio is 1.633.

I referred to this link:
http://www.engr.ku.edu/~rhale/ae510/lecture2/sld013.htm

and have some doubts that require clarificaiton.

1) Why can't I just use one vertical plane of the hexagonal structure, use the diagonal (4 R) and base length (2R) as two sides of a right-angled triangle and subsequently use pythagorean theorem to get the length of c which is the vertical length?

Because if I do, I'll get (4r)^2 = (2r)^2 + c^2

And eventually i get c = (sqrt12)/r and a = 2r and hence the c/a ratio is 1.73 and not 1.633.

2) It can be seen that a unit cell contains 3 layers of atoms, and the centre layer has 3 full atoms , as shown in figure (a).

However, the hard sphere model shows 6 half atoms, instead of 3 full atoms; which simply just doesn't look like figure (a)!

I'm sure I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what it is. Can someone pls englighten me?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
murasame said:
1) Why can't I just use one vertical plane of the hexagonal structure, use the diagonal (4 R) and base length (2R) as two sides of a right-angled triangle and subsequently use pythagorean theorem to get the length of c which is the vertical length?

Because if I do, I'll get (4r)^2 = (2r)^2 + c^2

And eventually i get c = (sqrt12)/r and a = 2r and hence the c/a ratio is 1.73 and not 1.633.
There does not exist a vertical plane in the hexagonal structure that has 3 neighboring atoms (from which you seem to have got 4R) in a diagonal as well as 2 neighboring atoms in the base (i.e, the same horizontal line).

Edit: The only planes in the hex crystal that have such a combination of atoms would be any of the basal (horizontal) planes. In the basal plane, the distance between parallel lines will be 1.732 times the lattice parameter. In other words, you have only calculated the distance between opposite sides of a regular hexagon, which being twice the height of an equilateral triangle, is naturally a*sqrt(3) !

More later...
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Unexpected irregular reflection signal from a high-finesse cavity'
I am observing an irregular, aperiodic noise pattern in the reflection signal of a high-finesse optical cavity (finesse ≈ 20,000). The cavity is normally operated using a standard Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) locking configuration, where an EOM provides phase modulation. The signals shown in the attached figures were recorded with the modulation turned off. Under these conditions, when scanning the laser frequency across a cavity resonance, I expected to observe a simple reflection dip. Instead...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
15K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
20K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
17K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
24K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
29K
Replies
8
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
23K
Replies
5
Views
2K