1 / 83

Rietveld Refinement with GSAS

Rietveld Refinement with GSAS. Recent Quote seen in Rietveld e-mail:. “Rietveld refinement is one of those few fields of intellectual endeavor wherein the more one does it, the less one understands.” (Sue Kesson). Stephens’ Law – “A Rietveld refinement is never perfected, merely abandoned”.

penn
Download Presentation

Rietveld Refinement with GSAS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Rietveld Refinement with GSAS Recent Quote seen in Rietveld e-mail: “Rietveld refinement is one of those few fields of intellectual endeavor wherein the more one does it, the less one understands.” (Sue Kesson) Stephens’ Law – “A Rietveld refinement is never perfected, merely abandoned” Demonstration – refinement of fluroapatite R.B. Von Dreele, Advanced Photon Source Argonne National Laboratory

  2. Rietveld refinement is multiparameter curve fitting • Result from fluoroapatite refinement – powder profile is curve with counting noise & fit is smooth curve • NB: big plot is sqrt(I) (lab CuKa B-B data) ) Iobs+ Icalc| Io-Ic| Refl. positions

  3. So how do we get there? • Beginning – model errors  misfits to pattern • Can’t just let go all parameters – too far from best model (minimum c2) False minimum Least-squares cycles c2 True minimum – “global” minimum parameter c2 surface shape depends on parameter suite

  4. Fluoroapatite start – add model (1st choose lattice/sp. grp.) • important – reflection marks match peaks • Bad start otherwise – adjust lattice parameters (wrong space group?)

  5. 2nd add atoms & do default initial refinement – scale & background • Notice shape of difference curve – position/shape/intensity errors

  6. Errors & parameters? • position – lattice parameters, zero point (not common) - other systematic effects – sample shift/offset • shape – profile coefficients (GU, GV, GW, LX, LY, etc. in GSAS) • intensity – crystal structure (atom positions & thermal parameters) - other systematic effects (absorption/extinction/preferred orientation) NB – get linear combination of all the above NB2 – trend with 2Q (or TOF) important peak shift wrong intensity too sharp LX - too small a – too small Ca2(x) – too small

  7. Difference curve – what to do next? • Dominant error – peak shapes? Too sharp? • Refine profile parameters next (maybe include lattice parameters) • NB - EACH CASE IS DIFFERENT • Characteristic “up-down-up” • profile error NB – can be “down-up-down” for too “fat” profile

  8. Result – much improved! • maybe intensity differences left – refine coordinates & thermal parms.

  9. Result – essentially unchanged Ca F PO4 • Thus, major error in this initial model – peak shapes

  10. So how does Rietveld refinement work? Rietveld Minimize Exact overlaps - symmetry Residuals: Io Incomplete overlaps SIc Ic Extract structure factors: Apportion Io by ratio of Ic to Sic & apply corrections

  11. Rietveld refinement - Least Squares Theory Given a set of observations Gobs and a function then the best estimate of the values pi is found by minimizing This is done by setting the derivative to zero Results in n “normal” equations (one for each variable) - solve for pi

  12. Least Squares Theory - continued Problem - g(pi) is nonlinear & transcendental (sin, cos, etc.) so can’t solve directly Expand g(pi) as Taylor series & toss high order terms ai - initial values of pi Dpi = pi - ai (shift) Substitute above Normal equations - one for each Dpi; outer sum over observations Solve for Dpi - shifts of parameters, NOT values

  13. Least Squares Theory - continued Rearrange . . . Matrix form: Ax=v

  14. Least Squares Theory - continued Matrix equation Ax=v Solve x = A-1v = Bv; B = A-1 This gives set of Dpi to apply to “old” set of ai repeat until all xi~0 (i.e. no more shifts) Quality of fit – “c2” = M/(N-P)  1 if weights “correct” & model without systematic errors (very rarely achieved) Bii = s2i – “standard uncertainty” (“variance”) in Dpi (usually scaled by c2) Bij/(Bii*Bjj) – “covariance” between Dpi & Dpj Rietveld refinement - this process applied to powder profiles Gcalc - model function for the powder profile (Y elsewhere)

  15. Rietveld Model: Yc = Io{SkhF2hmhLhP(Dh) + Ib} Least-squares: minimize M=Sw(Yo-Yc)2 Io - incident intensity - variable for fixed 2Q kh - scale factor for particular phase F2h - structure factor for particular reflection mh - reflection multiplicity Lh - correction factors on intensity - texture, etc. P(Dh) - peak shape function - strain & microstrain, etc. Ib - background contribution

  16. Peak shape functions – can get exotic! Convolution of contributing functions Instrumental effects Source Geometric aberrations Sample effects Particle size - crystallite size Microstrain - nonidentical unit cell sizes

  17. 2 1 2 2 ) = = L P ( D [ - 4 l n 2 D / H ] 4 l n 2 2 p H 2 k P ( D ) = e = G k k / H 1 + 4 D k H p k k k k CW Peak Shape Functions – basically 2 parts: Gaussian – usual instrument contribution is “mostly” Gaussian Lorentzian – usual sample broadening contribution • H - full width at half maximum - expression • from soller slit sizes and monochromator • angle • - displacement from peak position Convolution – Voigt; linear combination - pseudoVoigt

  18. CW Profile Function in GSAS Thompson, Cox & Hastings (with modifications) Pseudo-Voigt Mixing coefficient FWHM parameter

  19. CW Axial Broadening Function Finger, Cox & Jephcoat based on van Laar & Yelon Debye-Scherrer cone 2Q Scan H Slit 2QBragg 2Qmin 2Qi Depend on slit & sample “heights” wrt diffr. radius H/L & S/L - parameters in function (typically 0.002 - 0.020) Ä Pseudo-Voigt (TCH) = profile function

  20. How good is this function? Protein Rietveld refinement - Very low angle fit 1.0-4.0° peaks - strong asymmetry “perfect” fit to shape

  21. Bragg-Brentano Diffractometer – “parafocusing” Focusing circle X-ray source Diffractometer circle Receiving slit Incident beam slit Sample displaced Sample transparency Beam footprint Divergent beam optics

  22. CW Function Coefficients - GSAS Shifted difference Sample shift Sample transparency Gaussian profile Lorentzian profile (plus anisotropic broadening terms) Intrepretation?

  23. b* a* Crystallite Size Broadening Dd*=constant Lorentzian term - usual K - Scherrer const. Gaussian term - rare particles same size?

  24. b* a* Microstrain Broadening Lorentzian term - usual effect Gaussian term - theory? Remove instrumental part

  25. Microstrain broadening – physical model Model – elastic deformation of crystallites Stephens, P.W. (1999). J. Appl. Cryst. 32, 281-289. Also see Popa, N. (1998). J. Appl. Cryst. 31, 176-180. d-spacing expression Broadening – variance in Mhkl

  26. Microstrain broadening - continued Terms in variance Substitute – note similar terms in matrix – collect terms

  27. Microstrain broadening - continued Broadening – as variance 3 collected terms General expression – triclinic – 15 terms Symmetry effects – e.g. monoclinic (b unique) – 9 terms Cubic – m3m – 2 terms

  28. Example - unusual line broadening effects in Na parahydroxybenzoate Sharp lines Broad lines Directional dependence - Lattice defects? Seeming inconsistency in line broadening - hkl dependent

  29. H-atom location in Na parahydroxybenzoate Good DF map allowed by better fit to pattern DF contour map H-atom location from x-ray powder data

  30. Macroscopic Strain Part of peak shape function #5 – TOF & CW d-spacing expression; aij from recip. metric tensor Elastic strain – symmetry restricted lattice distortion TOF: ΔT = (d11h2+d22k2+d33l2+d12hk+d13hl+d23kl)d3 CW: ΔT = (d11h2+d22k2+d33l2+d12hk+d13hl+d23kl)d2tanQ Why? Multiple data sets under different conditions (T,P, x, etc.)

  31. Symmetry & macrostrain dij – restricted by symmetry e.g. for cubic DT = d11h2d3 for TOF Result: change in lattice parameters via change in metric coeff. aij’ = aij-2dij/C for TOF aij’ = aij-(p/9000)dij for CW Use new aij’ to get lattice parameters e.g. for cubic

  32. L h Nonstructural Features Affect the integrated peak intensity and not peak shape Bragg Intensity Corrections: Extinction Preferred Orientation Absorption & Surface Roughness Other Geometric Factors

  33. 1 E = 1 + x b 2 3 x x 5 x E = 1 - + - . . . x < 1 2 4 4 8 l 2 1 3 é ù E = 1 - - . . . x > 1 p x ê ú 8 x 2 l 1 2 8 x ë û 2 2 E = E s i n Q + E c o s Q h b l Extinction Sabine model - Darwin, Zachariasen & Hamilton Bragg component - reflection Laue component - transmission Combination of two parts

  34. 80% E x 60% 40% 20% 0% 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 Sabine Extinction Coefficient Crystallite grain size = Increasing wavelength (1-5 Å) Eh 2Q

  35. What is texture? Nonrandom crystallite grain orientations Random powder - all crystallite orientations equally probable - flat pole figure Pole figure - stereographic projection of a crystal axis down some sample direction Loose powder (100) random texture (100) wire texture Crystallites oriented along wire axis - pole figure peaked in center and at the rim (100’s are 90º apart) Orientation Distribution Function - probability function for texture Metal wire

  36. Texture - measurement by diffraction (220) Non-random crystallite orientations in sample (200) Incident beam x-rays or neutrons Sample (111) • Debye-Scherrer cones • uneven intensity due to texture • also different pattern of unevenness for different hkl’s • Intensity pattern changes as sample is turned

  37. Preferred Orientation - March/Dollase Model Uniaxial packing Ellipsoidal Distribution - assumed cylindrical Ro - ratio of ellipsoid axes = 1.0 for no preferred orientation Ellipsoidal particles Spherical Distribution Integral about distribution - modify multiplicity

  38. l l ¥ m n m n å å å f ( g ) = C T ( g ) l l l=0 m=-l n=-l F1 F2 Y Texture - Orientation Distribution Function - GSAS Probability distribution of crystallite orientations - f(g) f(g) = f(F1,Y,F2) Tlmn = Associated Legendre functions or generalized spherical harmonics F1,Y,F2 - Euler angles

  39. Texture effect on reflection intensity - Rietveld model • Projection of orientation distribution function for chosen reflection (h) and sample direction (y) • K - symmetrized spherical harmonics - account for sample & crystal symmetry • “Pole figure” - variation of single reflection intensity as fxn. of sample orientation - fixed h • “Inverse pole figure” - modification of all reflection intensities by sample texture - fixed y - Ideally suited for neutron TOF diffraction • Rietveld refinement of coefficients, Clmn, and 3 orientation angles - sample alignment

  40. Absorption X-rays - independent of 2Q - flat sample – surface roughness effect - microabsorption effects - but can change peak shape and shift their positions if small (thick sample) Neutrons - depend on 2Q and l but much smaller effect - includes multiple scattering much bigger effect - assume cylindrical sample Debye-Scherrer geometry

  41. Model - A.W. Hewat For cylinders and weak absorption only i.e. neutrons - most needed for TOF data not for CW data – fails for mR>1 GSAS – New more elaborate model by Lobanov & alte de Viega – works to mR>10 Other corrections - simple transmission & flat plate

  42. Surface Roughness – Bragg-Brentano only Low angle – less penetration (scatter in less dense material) - less intensity High angle – more penetration (go thru surface roughness) - more dense material; more intensity Nonuniform sample density with depth from surface Most prevalent with strong sample absorption If uncorrected - atom temperature factors too small Suortti model Pitschke, et al. model (a bit more stable)

  43. 2 1 + M c o s 2 Q L = 2 p 2 s i n Q c o s Q 1 L = 2 p 2 s i n Q c o s Q 4 L = d s i n Q p Other Geometric Corrections Lorentz correction - both X-rays and neutrons Polarization correction - only X-rays X-rays Neutrons - CW Neutrons - TOF

  44. Carbon scattering factor uncorrected 6 4 fC Solvent corrected 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 2Q Solvent scattering – proteins & zeolites? Contrast effect between structure & “disordered” solvent region f = fo-Aexp(-8pBsin2Q/l2) Babinet’s Principle: Atoms not in vacuum – change form factors

  45. Background scattering Manual subtraction – not recommended - distorts the weighting scheme for the observations& puts a bias in the observationsFit to a function - many possibilities: Fourier series - empirical Chebyschev power series - ditto Exponential expansions - air scatter & TDS Fixed interval points - brute force Debye equation - amorphous background (separate diffuse scattering in GSAS)

  46. Debye Equation - Amorphous Scattering real space correlation functionespecially good for TOFterms with vibration amplitude distance

  47. Neutron TOF - fused silica “quartz”

  48. Rietveld Refinement with Debye Function O 1.60Å 4.13Å Si 2.63Å 3.12Å 5.11Å 6.1Å a-quartz distances 7 terms Ri –interatomic distances in SiO2 glass 1.587(1), 2.648(1), 4.133(3), 4.998(2), 6.201(7), 7.411(7) & 8.837(21) Same as found in a-quartz

  49. Non-Structural Features in Powder Patterns Summary 1. Large crystallite size - extinction 2. Preferred orientation 3. Small crystallite size - peak shape 4. Microstrain (defect concentration) 5. Amorphous scattering - background

  50. Time to quit? Stephens’ Law – “A Rietveld refinement is never perfected, merely abandoned” Also – “stop when you’ve run out of things to vary” What if problem is more complex? Apply constraints & restraints  “What to do when you have too many parameters & not enough data”

More Related