Patent Grant
11255802
The present application is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/JP2018/021153, filed on Jun. 1, 2018 which claims priority to and the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. 2017-110500, filed on Jun. 2, 2017, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
The present invention is related to the field of crystallography. To be more precise, the invention is related to a method and a program that are capable of determining the best or better parameters for the powder diffraction pattern.
To determine the crystal structure for powders, several pattern-fitting methods by using the X-ray and/or neutron diffraction pattern have been developed. Among them, the Rietveld method is widely used. By applying the method, the crystal and the magnetic structures are obtained. In addition, crystalline size, strain, mosaicity, charge/nuclear densities, and quantitative analysis, i.e., a ratio between crystalline and amorphous phases, etc. can be calculated from the crystal structural parameters.
This technique can be applied for diffraction pattern which is collected by using a familiar and conventional diffractometer in short time; therefore, it is widely used to research, develop, and mass-produce in numerous fields of the functional materials such as electronic, magnetic, metal, superconductivity, battery, ceramics, pharmaceuticals and food additives, etc. For instance, as shown in Ref 2, it is defined by law of Japanese Industrial Standards to apply a powder X-ray diffraction method to analyze samples with high concentration of asbestos. For this, the Rietveld method is used. Another example in industry is the quantitative analysis for cement clinker.
The principle of the Rietveld method is written in Refs. 3 to 5 in detail. In the following, the principle of the Rietveld method is briefly introduced. The square sum of the weighted residual, SR, is minimized to refine the parameters in the formula during refinements. The weighted-pattern reliability factor, Rwp, which is defined by the observed intensity (yoi), the calculated intensity (yci) and the weight wi, at the point i, is used as an indicator of the best fit of the data. Here, wi≡1/yoi is generally adopted. Rwp is used to judge the goodness-of-fit. Rwp is proportional to the square of SR. The other reliability factors used for this purpose are also suggested to judge the goodness-of-fit. Among them, S≡Rwp/Re is a candidate, where Re is the expected R-factor. It is empirically proposed that: (1) an enough good fitting for S<1.3, (2) possibly good fitting (but might be a better fitting) to confirm the structural model and/or result for 1.3<S<1.7 and (3) no-convergence for S>1.7 (Refs. 3 and 4). Note that it is a critical feature that the conventional indicators are calculated by all the calculated and observed parameters to convert into a figure related to the longitudinal axis of the data.
However, it is impossible to obtain the refinement parameters with high accuracy in the Rietveld method. The results depend not only on the quality of the powdered sample and the effect of measurement errors of the observed diffraction pattern but also who and when analyzes. Thus, it is difficult to obtain parameters within 1% of accuracy. In Ref 4, there are the following two descriptions: 1) the absolute value of the refinement parameters cannot be obtained, 2) the internal material such as a standard reference material (SRM) of certificated quality supplied by the National Institute of Standards of Technology (NIST) should be mixed, then a diffraction pattern is collected and used it for refinement. The internal standard method is recognized as a very fundamental method not only for the Rietveld analysis but also for analyzing the powder diffraction pattern; therefore, it is also described in ref 6. Some researchers/technicians analyze the data without the above knowledges.
For instance, Reference 7 describes the specific cases related to the above-mentioned issue. Hill summarized the results of Rietveld refinements on the project undertaken by the Commission on Powder Diffraction of the International Union of Crystallography. Several specialists analyzed the powder diffraction pattern of standard PbSO4 (generally used as a battery), measured by a conventional Bragg-Brentano diffractometer using Cu Kα radiation. Because several experts analyzed the same data, the quality of a sample and a measurement error principally never make a difference in analyzing the results. This fact indicates that if the results differ, it should be caused by the refinement processes.
The results showed clear deviation. The lattice parameters a, b and c are in the range of 0.84764-0.84859 nm, 0.53962-0.54024 nm and 0.69568-0.69650 nm, respectively. The accuracy of the lattice parameters is of an order of 0.001 nm or 0.1%. Furthermore, the weighted mean parameters for a-, b- and c-axes are 0.84804(4) nm, 0.53989(3) nm and 0.69605(2) nm, respectively. They are in good agreement with those determined from single-crystal X-ray diffraction data which is generally accepted to be highly accurate. These facts mean that 1) both the results from powder and single-crystal are same in principle and 2) either smaller or larger lattice parameters compared to the true one is possibly obtained depending on a researcher by the Rietveld method. Thus, it is obvious that a unique result with high accuracy cannot be obtained even for the specialists and the difference between the results comes from the analyzing process.
Note that, as shown above, the accuracy of the lattice parameters is of an order of 0.001 nm, which is incomparably large considering that the linear thermal expansion coefficient, generally, is of an order of 10−5 K−1 to 10−6 K−1 for solid materials (Ref 8). This issue should be addressed with priority.
Considering these situations, Prince has stated, “stopping and finishing are different,” in Ref 3. Also, in Ref 9, Toby mentioned, “These factors are only one criterion for judging the quality of Rietveld fits and the most important way to determine the quality of a Rietveld fit is by viewing the observed and calculated patterns graphically.” Hill also stated that “A difference profile plot is probably the best way of following and guiding a Rietveld refinement.”
Thus, there is a numerical criterion to evaluate the best fit of the data but it is insufficient to obtain the refinement parameters accurately. As mentioned above, suggesting several criteria, apart from Rwp, implies that we cannot obtain the refinement parameters accurately by using Rwp.
The present invention has been made by consideration of the above situation which sets the objective of the invention to provide a method/program for judging a true solution. The method/program comprises the steps of calculating a criterion that corresponds to the peak-shift and then judging the true solution by the criterion.
To solve the above shown problems, the present invention includes eight claims shown below.
1. A calculation method to judge a best solution of refinement parameters for a powder diffraction pattern, comprising:
The present invention has the following effects.
According to the present invention, the refinement parameters can be obtained with high accuracy. The true value of the lattice parameter within an accuracy of 0.000006 nm is obtained. The accuracy is improved further by two orders of magnitude (i.e., two more digits lower) compared to that obtained by the conventional Rietveld method. For the present invention, one does not require to mix the standard reference material with a sample. The invention also overcomes the comparison among several diffraction data because the result is independent of the range of the observed diffraction angle or the apparatus. Therefore, it is effectively adoptable for fundamental research, technical application as well as quality control of the mass-products.
Note that using information along the x-axis of the data such as the peak-shift parameters and the lattice parameters directly to an indicator of fits. It also means that no information along the y-axis is used or no translation of the indicator to information along the y-axis. Furthermore, several analyses are performed for the identical data in the present invention. Thus, the results depend on the 2θ-range used in the analysis. These are not mentioned in Refs. 1-9 at all.
These and other features as well as the advantages of the present invention will be more readily appreciated when considered in connection with the following detailed description and appended drawings, wherein:
The present invention will now be described by referring to the appended figures representing preferred embodiments. The major feature of the method/program of the invention is to introduce a criterion of the peak-shift, which is a physical quantity along the x-axis of the data. In the present disclosure, the X-ray diffraction data of standard reference material (SRM) 660a (lanthanum hexaboride, LaB6) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) collected with Cu Kα1 radiation was used, where the lattice parameter aNIST=0.41569162(97) nm≃0.415692(1) nm at 22.5° C. The profile function of a Thompson-Cox-Hastings pseudo-Voigt function was used. Howard's method, which is based on the multi-term Simpson's rule integration, was employed for the profile asymmetry. The background function was the sixth order of Legendre polynomials.
The method for obtaining best solution in the diffraction pattern is a method by performing several Rietveld analyses; and comprising the steps of calculations; a first calculating step of the converged values 100 and a first judging step of the best converged values 200, or a second calculating step of the converged values 300, a second judging step of the best converged values 400 and a first selecting step of the better solution 500 or a third calculating step of the converged values 600, a third judging step of the best converged values 700 and a first calculating step of the global solution 800 as shown in
The feature especially comprises the second calculating step of the converged values 300 or the first calculating step of the global solution 800.
The schematic view for calculating the best solution of the embodiment is shown in
At the first calculating step of the converged values 100, the conventional Rietveld analysis is conducted to obtain the convergence value of the refinement parameters. Next, the peak-shift at each Bragg reflection hkl is calculated by using the peak-shift parameters among the above-obtained refinement parameters, and then obtains the sum. If the sum is finite, the solution is not the best one. If the sum is zero, the solution is the best one.
The sum of the peak-shift obtained by using the above peak-shift parameters is 0.3816. Because the sum is finite, it can be judged that the solution may have possibility not be the best one (the first judging step of the best converged values 200). This is consistent with the result of a≠aNIST. Here, the most important feature of the present invention is to judge a solution by using information along x-axis such as the peak-shift parameters and the lattice parameters.
Next, referring to
At the second calculating step of the converged values 300, at first, a parameter is selected among the peak-shift parameters, structural parameters, surface-roughness parameters and profile parameters.
At least two Rietveld analyses with the different initial values for the above-selected parameter are performed, and then obtain the solutions which correspond to each initial parameter. Here, by performing with fixing the value for the above-selected parameters, the solutions, which correspond to each initial parameter can certainly be obtained.
Nest, for the second judging step of the best converged values 400, same as the first judging of the best converged values 200, the peak-shift at each Bragg reflection hkl is calculated by using the peak-shift parameters among the above-obtained refinement parameters, and then obtain the sum.
At the first selecting step of a better solution 500, compare the above-obtained sums; the smaller one is closer to the true solution than the others.
For an example of the second calculating step of the converged values 300, the first term Z in the peak-shift parameters is selected and given the values of Z=0.00 and 0.01 for the initial values.
For the embodiment in the second judging step of the best converged valued 400, the sum is computed by using the above-obtained peak-shift parameters. The sums are 0.2987 for Z=0.00 and 0.2640 for Z=0.01. Both of them are finite values, therefore, it can be judged that the solution may have possibility not be the best one. This is consistent with the above-obtained results of a a≠aNIST.
For the embodiment of the first selecting step of a better solution 500, the above sums are compared. By comparing 0.2987 and 0.2640, the solution for Z=0.01 is closer than that for Z=0.01 to the true solution. Actually, the true lattice parameter is 0.415692(1) nm, and the difference between the obtained lattice parameters and the true one are 0.000005 nm for Z=0.00 and 0.000004 nm; therefore, it is confirmed that the lattice parameter for Z=0.01 is closer to the true one than that for Z=0.00.
Next, referring to
At the third calculating step of the converged values 600, at first, a parameter is selected among the peak-shift parameters, structural parameters, surface-roughness parameters and profile parameters.
At least three Rietveld analyses with the different initial values for the above-selected parameter are performed, and then obtain the solutions which correspond to each initial parameter. Here, by performing with fixing the value for the above-selected parameters, the solutions, which correspond to each initial parameter, can certainly be obtained.
Nest, for the third judging step of the best converged values 700, same as the second judging of the best converged values 400, the peak-shift at each Bragg reflection hkl is calculated by using the peak-shift parameters among the above-obtained refinement parameters, and then obtain the sum.
At the first calculating step of the global solution 800, the above-obtained sums are used. By comparing the sums or curve-fitting by such as a quadratic function; the smallest solution, which is the global solution, is obtained.
For an example of the third calculating step of the converged values 600, the first constant term Z in the peak-shift parameters is selected and given the values with a step of 0.001 or 0.01 in the range of −0.2≤Z≤0.2 for the initial values. The example results for Z=0.00 and 0.01 in
For the embodiment of the third judging step of the best converged values 700, the sums, which are computed by using the above-obtained peak-shift parameters, are 0.2987 for Z=0.00, 0.2640 for Z=0.01 and 0.2740 for Z=0.02. All of them are finite values; therefore, it can be judged that the solution may have the possibility not be the best one. This is consistent with the above-obtained results of a≠aNIST.
For the embodiment of the first calculating step of the global solution 800, the above-obtained sums are compared. By comparing 0.2987, 0.2640 and 0.2740, it is found that the solution for Z=0.01 is closer than those for Z=0.00 and 0.02 to the true solution. Actually, the true lattice parameter is 0.415692(1) nm, and the difference between the obtained lattice parameters and the true one are, respectively, 0.000005 nm for Z=0.00, 0.000004 nm for Z=0.01 and 0.000013 nm for Z=0.02; therefore, it is confirmed that the lattice parameter for Z=0.01 is the closest to the true one. Moreover, the conventional criterion of fit for Rwp's are 8.405% for Z=0.00, 8.329% for Z=0.01 and 8.272% for Z=0.02. In the case of judging by Rwp, the solution for Z=0.02 could be the closest to the true one. However, it is obvious that the deviation of the lattice parameter for Z=0.02 from the true one is the largest among them. Thus, the true solution cannot be obtained by the conventional criterion on Rwp.
In the above description, the results for three Z-values are shown. All the results for the steps 600 to 800 in the range of −0.2≤Z≤0.2 are shown in
Note that it has been suggested that viewing a difference in the profile-plots between the observed and the calculated intensities is effective to judge a goodness-of-fit according to Refs. 7 and 9. However, the difference is too small to visually discriminate as shown in
Next, referring
It is natural that the range of the diffraction angles in the powder diffraction pattern depends on the apparatus, the sample, or the person executing the experiment. For example, although the diffraction data used in this embodiment includes very high diffraction angle up to 2θ=152°, the highest diffraction angle observed in the experiment is usually 120°, 90°, 70°, etc. in most of the case. It is expected that the observed 2θ-range, i.e. the analysis 2θ-range could affect the result. Therefore, we investigated the effect of the highest angle 2θmax used in the analysis on the results.
The lattice parameter obtained by the conventional Rietveld analysis in the range of 52°≤2θmax≤152° strongly depends on 2θmax as shown with open circles in
The result obtained by the proposed criterion in the present invention is shown in
Next, the result of the peak-shift, which has strong correlation with the lattice parameter, is described.
For the powder diffraction pattern, the geometric difference of the peak-shift Δ2θ≡2θideal−2θobs between the ideal diffraction angle 2θideal and the experimentally observed 2θobs may be caused by absorption of X-ray by the sample, the systematic error of the instrument, a misalignment of the apparatus and a sample, etc. The peak-shift function is used to represent and correct the above difference; therefore, it is taken into account in the calculation for the conventional Rietveld analysis as well as in the present invention.
The SRM sample from NIST is provided with a certification, on which various certified values/properties are described, and the list of 2θideal is shown for SRM 660a (LaB6).
Here, for a material such as LaB6 with high crystal symmetry, it is possible to evaluate the values of 2θobs by viewing the raw data. It is because that Bragg peeks independently appear at each different diffraction angle. In the following results, the values of 2θ at the highest diffraction intensity, for each Bragg peak, are defined as 2θmax; not to cause a difference by the respective researcher.
In
The present invention is based on the following facts for the Rietveld analysis; (i) the true solution cannot be obtained only by the conventional criterion Rwp which is information along the y-axis of the data and (ii) the proposed criterion (hereafter APS), which is information along the x-axis of the data, such as the peak-shift parameters and the lattice parameters, is additionally needed to obtain the true solution accurately. Here, neither (i) or (ii) have been reported in any reference. In the following, the details of the facts (i) and (ii) are described. The representative results for 2θmax=152° and 92° are shown.
First, for the fact (i),
the reliability factor and the lattice parameter obtained by the conventional Rietveld analysis are Rwpc,(152)=8.213% and ac,(152)=0.415655(1) nm for 2θmax=152° and Rwpc,(92)=8.610% and ac,(92)=0.415811(22) nm for 2θmax=92°, where the superscripts ‘c’, (152) and (92) refer to the “conventional”, 2θmax=152° and 2θmax=92°, respectively. ac,(152) and ac,(92) are 0.0089% or 0.000037 nm smaller and 0.0286% or 0.000119 nm larger compared to the certificated value of aNIST. Thus, it is obvious that the correct value is not obtained by the conventional Rietveld analysis.
Furthermore, the peak-shift parameters obtained by the above analyses are Zc,(152)=0.0473(17)°, Dsc,(152)=−0.0786(15)° and Tsc,(152)=0.00106(22)° for 2θmax=152° and Zc,(92)=−0.0479(146)°, Dsc,(92)=0.0145(142)° and Tsc,(92)=−0.00148(159)° for 2θmax=92°, respectively.
Here, the peak-shift Δ2θR can be computed by using the above three peak-shift parameters using Eq. (1) (Refs. 3 and 4). Equation (1) represents the difference between the experimentally obtained diffraction angle and the calculated diffraction angle considering the geometry. The subscript ‘R’ refers to the “Rietveld”. Z is the zero-point shift, Ds the specimen-displacement parameter and Ts the specimen-transparency parameter (Refs. 3 and 4).
Δ2θR=Z+Ds cos θ+Ts sin 2θ [Equation 1]
Moreover, the reference material is provided with the certification, in which the true values of the peak-shift 2θtrue are described. Therefore, the true peak-shift (Δ2θm≡2θtrue−2θobs) can be calculated by comparing with 2θobs which is estimated from the observed diffraction pattern, where the subscript ‘m’ refers to the “manual”.
Thus, two peak-shifts Δ2θRc and Δ2θm are evaluated as mentioned above.
So far, it is demonstrated that the true solution is not obtained by the conventional Rietveld analysis, referring the lattice parameter and the peak-shift parameters as a set of examples.
Next, to investigate the reason why the true solution is not obtained by the conventional Rietveld analysis, a modified Rietveld analysis with a fixed-value of the lattice parameter at aNIST is conducted. The reliability factors are Rwpf,(152)=8.355% and Rwpf,(92)=8.623%, where the superscript ‘f’ refers to the “fixed”. In both cases of 2θmax=152° and 92°, Rwpf is larger than Rwpc even though the lattice parameter is the true value of aNIST for Rwpf. It is clear that true lattice parameter cannot be obtained only by the conventional criterion on Rwp.
The peak-shift parameters in the above analyses of 2θmax=152° and 92° are, respectively,
Zf,(152)=0.0754(38)°,Dsf,(152)=−0.0417(34)°,Tsf,(152)=0.00131(19)° and
Zf,(92)=0.0288(14)°,Dsf,(92)=−0.0601(13)°,Tsf,(92)=0.00663(44)°.
The peak-shift Δ2θRf is computed by substituting the above parameters in Eq. (1).
Δ2θana=2{arcsin(sin θ/C)−θ} [Equation 2]
For a crystal with lattice spacing d, the Bragg's equation is expressed by Eq. (3), where 2θ is the diffraction angle (e.g., Ref 6). A C times larger crystal, compared with the above, has lattice spacing C×d, where C is the coefficient. In this case, the Bragg's equation is expressed as Eq. (4). Rearranging Eqs. (3) and (4), we obtain Eq. (2). The coefficients are calculated to be C(152)=ac,(152)/aNIST=0.999911 and C(92)/ac,(92)/aNIST=1.000286, respectively, for 2θmax=152° and 92°.
2d sin(2θ/2)=λ [Equation 3]
2(C×d)sin{(2θ+Δ2θana)/2}=λ [Equation 4]
From the above, it is found that the analytical peak-shift, which is cause by the mismatch of the lattice parameter from the true one and is expressed by Eq. (4), exists in the calculation. Namely, the peak-shift should be expressed by Eq. (5) not Eq. (1). The superscript ‘G’ refers to the “Geometry”. C is the coefficient of the ratio on the true value of the lattice parameter (the unit cell).
Δ2θR=ZG+DsG cos θ+TsG sin 2θ+2{arcsin(sin θ/C)−θ} [Equation 5]
Here, another important fact is that Eq. (2) and Eq. (5) can be fitted by Eq. (1). In other words, Δ2θana in Eqs. (2) and (5) are fitted by a formula of Δ2θana=ζ+δs cos θ+τs sin 2θ. This is also understood from the fact that Δ2θana corresponds to Δ2θdif in
Δ2θR=ZG+DsG cos θ+TsG sin 2θ+ζ+δs cos θ+τs sin 2θ=(ZG+ζ)+(DsG+δs)cos θ+(TsG+τs)sin 2θ [Equation 6]
Next, about the fact (ii),
it is found that the peak-shift is expressed by the above Eq. (5) as shown in the fact (i). To obtain the correct lattice parameter accurately, C=1 in Eqs. (5) and (2) or Δ2θana=0 should be imposed. In practice, preventing Eq. (2) from diverging is equivalent to the above conditions. However, as the peak-shift parameters obtained by the Rietveld analysis are the sum of Eqs. (1) and (2), it is impossible to evaluate the parameters coming from Eq. (2) itself. Therefore, Eq. (7), which is the sum of Eqs. (1) and (2), should be used instead. Equation (7) is qualitatively equivalent one to Eq. (5). The first term of the right-hand side in Eq. (7) is caused by the experiment and corresponds to Eq. (1). The second term of the right-hand side in Eq. (7) is caused by the analysis and corresponds to Eq. (2).
Δ2θR=Δ2θexp+Δ2θana [Equation 7]
Here, the first term of Eq. (7) is ideally zero but is realistically finite depending on 2θ and should be determined at the time of measurement. On the contrary, the second term of Eq. (7) should be zero in the calculation when the lattice parameter is the true one, increases as a mismatch of the lattice parameter and diverges with 2θ.
Considering the sum of the above peak-shift, it is possible to impose restriction preventing Eq. (7) to diverge.
Moreover, the conventional criterion Rwp is an indicator along the y-axis of the data; therefore, is insufficient not to enhance the peak-shift which is information along the x-axis of the data. The reasons are: (a) the parameters other than the peak-shift parameters contribute to the intensity along the y-axis of the data, and (b) the peak-shift is affected by Eq. (2). An example showing the Rwp to be insufficient as a criterion is already given above in
Incidentally, the Rietveld analysis being one of the methods for crystal structural refinement; the structural parameters are usually reported in articles but no information about the peak-shift parameters is shown in these publications. Hence, it is uncertain that the obtained peak-shift parameters are verified to be the true values or not.
Accordingly, the reason why the unique solution is not obtained even by the representative specialists as shown in the Hill's report may be related to the fitting accuracy of the peak-shift.
Furthermore, the Rietveld method has been first developed by using the angle-dispersive neutron diffraction patter in the late 1960s. Neutron has very high transparency against the materials. Therefore, the peak-shift for the neutron diffraction data can be well approximated by a constant value. Moreover, neutron is scattered by nuclei in a material and shows the diffraction phenomenon. The diffraction peak width is very wide in the high 2θ regions because the distribution of nuclei is in the order of femto-meter. Therefore, the effect of the peak-shift on 2θ in the high 2θ angles is very tiny. In fact, Rietveld applied a constant parameter as the peak-shift function which is independent of 2θ in Ref 1 serving as the first report on the Rietveld method. It can be said that in the early days of the development, the error in the peak-shift caused by the person who is analyzing did not come to the forefront.
On the other hand, the Rietveld method has been applied to the X-ray data in the late 1970s. X-ray is scatted by electrons in a material and shows the diffraction phenomenon. The diffraction peak width is rather narrow compared with that in the neutron diffraction data not only in the high 2θ region but over the whole 2θ region because the distribution of electrons is in the order of Ångstrom. Therefore, the effect of the peak-shift on 2θ in the high 2θ angles is very large. Moreover, the synchrotron X-ray facilities are constructed all over the world since the 1980s and they provide X-rays and the apparatus with highly improved resolution. As a result, the effect of the peak-shift, especially, in the high 2θ region may have come into the forefront. In fact, the data reported in Ref 7 are measured by using X-rays in the 1980s and their results differ among the researchers. However, the Rietveld method has been spread widely without verifying the facts (i) and (ii) shown in the present invention because the method was well established in neutron study. The present invention solves the issue.
This invention is available for quality checking of the powder products. At present, X-ray fluorescence has been generally used for the chemical analysis. However, one cannot distinguish whether the objective material is produced from the several raw materials by analyzing by X-ray fluorescence, though a amount of the contamination can be detected accurately and precisely. It means that there is no difference between the objective material and the raw materials in terms of chemical composition. It is expected that one can make a quality control by the present invention instead of X-ray fluorescence or combining with X-ray fluorescence, because the present invention achieves the high accurate qualitative and quantitative analysis. Furthermore, the present invention can determine the lattice parameters even for the lattice parameters for alloys, which continuously change with the composition.
For the examples for carrying out the present invention, the most generally function of Eq. (1) was used for the peak-shift function. The other functions such as Eqs. (8)-(11) are also used for the peak-shift function (see Refs. 3 and 4). Here, Eq. (11) represents a Legendre polynomial. A shape of the functions shown in Eqs. (8)-(11) are equivalent to (Eq.1), which is easily confirmed, for example, by setting the third term, t3, in (Eq.8) is set at zero. Hence, Eqs. (8)-(11) realize the present invention as well.
Δ2θR=t0+t1 cos θ+ts sin 2θ+t3 tan θ. [Equation 8]
Δ2θR=t0+t1(2θ)+t2(2θ)2+t3(2θ)3. [Equation 9]
Δ2θR=t0+t1 tan θ+t2 tan2θ+t3 tan3θ [Equation 10]
Δ2θR=t0F0(θ)+t1F1(θ)+t2F2(θ)+t3F3(θ) [Equation 11]
Note that Σall|Δ2θR| is shown as a criterion in the examples for carrying out the present invention but is not the only function. The other functions such as ∫|Δ2θR|d(2θ) can be also available.
The present invention can be applied for both X-ray and neutron experiments and both the angular dispersive and energy dispersive apparatus. Moreover, an application of the present invention is not limited to the Rietveld analysis. The present invention can be applied to the similar analysis such as a indexing and a pattern decomposition with the diffraction data. Particularly, the criterion shown in the present invention can be used as it is for the pattern decomposition, because the principle of the pattern decomposition is the same as that of the Rietveld analysis. The difference of the pattern decomposition and the Rietveld analysis is a calculation method the integrated intensity.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| JP2017-110500 | Jun 2017 | JP | national |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/JP2018/021153 | 6/1/2018 | WO | 00 |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2018/221718 | 12/6/2018 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20120186449 | Yaghi | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Cullity, “Shinban Cullity X-sen kaisetsu gairon,” Agune-shoufuusya, Jun. 20, 1980, Tokyo, Japan. |
| R.J. Hill, “Rietveld refinment round robin, I. Analysis of standard X-ray and neutron data for PbSO4,” Journal of Applied Crystallography, 1992, vol. 25, pp. 589-610. |
| Search Report dated Aug. 21, 2018 for PCT Application No. PCT/JP2018/021153. |
| “Determination of asbestos in building material products,” JIS A 1481, 2016. |
| Nakai, et al. “Funmatsu X-sen kaisetsu no jissai,” Asakura shoten, 2009, 2nd edition, Tokyo, Japan. |
| Rietveld, “A Profile Refinement Method for Nuclear and Magnetic Structures,” Journal of Applied Crystallography, 1969, vol. 2, pp. 65-71. |
| “Rika nenpyo Heisei 21,” Ed. National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Maruzen, Nov. 30, 2008, pp. 401-402, Tokyo, Japan. |
| B.H. Toby, “R factors in Rietveld analysis: How good is good enough?”, Powder Diffraction, 2006, vol. 21, pp. 67-70. |
| Tsubota, et al., “RIETAN-FP de manabu Rietveld kaiseki,” Johokiko, 2012, Tokyo, Japan. |
| Young, “Rietveld method,” Oxford Univ Press, 1993, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1993. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20210080407 A1 | Mar 2021 | US |
