Article contents
Are Common Atom Form Factors in HREM-Simulations Accurate Enough for Quantitative Image Matching?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 July 2020
Extract
1.Introduction:If digital image matching between an experimental HREM-image and the simulated image fails, one of the suggested reasons is the “inaccuracy of the atomic form factors“ describing the electron scattering in common simulation packages using the free and neutral atom approximation from Hartree-Fock calculations [1]. In detail, three contributions within the usual form factor calculations are mainly missing: (i) the redistribution of charge in ionic crystals, (ii) the accumulation of charge away from atom sites in covalent crystals, (iii) the inclusion of thermal diffuse scattering (TDS) as well as the correlated vibration of atoms beyond the Einstein-approximation within the Debye-Waller factor (DWF) theory. Each of the three effects have been checked separately:
2.Simulations of TDS by Coupling of Molecular Dynamics Time Series to HREM- Multislice Calculations:70 snap shots of a series of structures of NiAl (4.9 × 5.1 × l0nm) are stored from an equilibrated molecular dynamics simulation with vibration amplitudes corresponding to room temperature.
- Type
- Computational Methods for Microscopy
- Information
- Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 3 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '97, Microscopy Society of America 55th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 31st Annual Meeting, Histochemical Society 48th Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, August 10-14, 1997 , August 1997 , pp. 1159 - 1160
- Copyright
- Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1997
References
1. Int.Tab. X-Ray Cryst. IV, Ibers, J.A.et al.,eds, Kynoch,Birmingham (1974).Google Scholar
2. Bird, D. and King, Q., Acta Cryst A 46, 202 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Mobus, G., Gemming, T. and Gumbsch, P., Acta Cryst A, submitted (1997).Google Scholar
4. Rez, D., Rez, P. and Grant, I., Acta Cryst. A 50, 481 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Anstis, G.R., Hu, M, Wenk, H-R. and O’Keefe, M., Acta Cryst A 29, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Payne, M.C.et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 64 1045 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Wilson, M., Exner, M., Huang, Y.M. and Finnis, M.W., Phys. Rev. B, 54, 1583 (1996)Google Scholar
8. Gemming, T.et al., Proceedings of 11th EUREM, Dublin, CDROM-T14, (1996).Google Scholar
9. Stobbs, S.H. and Stobbs, W.M., Proc. of EMAG95, IOP 147, Birmingham, p. 83Google Scholar
10. Zuo, J.M. and Spence, J.C.H., Ultramicr. 35, 185 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Deininger, C., Necker, G. and Mayer, J., Ultramicr. 54, 15 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Nüchter, W., Weickenmeier, A. and Mayer, J., Proc. of EMAG95, IOP 147, Birmingham, p. 129.Google Scholar
13. We acknowledge Mike Finnis for valuable contributions. This work is funded in part by the Stiftung, VW-, German-Israeli-Foundation (# 0281-040.10/93) and BRITE-EURAM (BRE2-0605).Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by