Micron 117 (2019) 1–7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Micron
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/micron

TEMUC3, a computer program for unit-cell determination of crystalline T

phases in TEM experiments
⁎
X.-Z. Li
Nebraska Center for Materials and Nanoscience, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 68588, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A new computer program, TEMUC3, has been developed for unit-cell determination of crystal phases using
Computer software electron diffraction data. A graphic user-friendly interface was designed for the following operations, (i) a re-
Electron diffraction ciprocal lattice is reconstructed from a tilt series of electron diffraction patterns; (ii) a Niggli cell is generated
Lattice reconstruction from the two electron diffraction patterns in a tilt series; iii) a Niggli cell is generated from three electron
Niggli cell
diffraction patterns, in which each pair shares a common reflection vector; (iv) a conventional unit-cell is
Unit-cell refinement
converted from a Niggli cell; (v) a unit-cell is refined from a set of reflections. The application of TEMUC3 is
further elucidated in three examples. A brief discussion on the generation of a primitive cell from electron
diffraction data and the cell reduction in reciprocal and direct space is presented.

1. Introduction
Determination of unit-cells for unknown crystalline phases is a basic
requisite for materials characterization and the first step of ab initio
structure determination. Electron diffraction technique as a counterpart
of X-ray diffraction technique has been extensively used in material
characterization and crystal structure determination. Electron crystal-
lography has the following important complements to X-ray crystal-
lography (Zou et al., 2011): (i) crystals are millions of times smaller
than those for X-ray diffraction studies; and (ii) it is possible to focus the
electrons to form an image.
A selected-area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern can be viewed as
a two-dimensional (2D) section of a three-dimensional (3D) reciprocal
lattice. A series of reciprocal planes can be obtained using a double tilt
holder for a transmission electron microscope (TEM). Due to the fea-
tures of the SAED technique, it is natural to determine the unit-cell for
an unknown crystalline phase from a tilt series of SAED patterns. This is
considered as a traditional method, which was documented originally
in the book by Vainshtein (1964) and recently in the book by Zou et al.
(2011). However, this method is troublesome in the application to
crystalline phases in monoclinic and triclinic systems.
A crystal lattice can be characterized by a unique choice of a re-
duced cell and there are 44 primitive Niggli reduced cells corre-
sponding to 14 Bravais lattices (Niggli, 1928). The importance of the
Niggli cell is due to its uniqueness and the possibility that it can be used
for determining the Bravais type of the lattice (Gruber, 1973). Niggli
cell had been widely used in X-ray crystallography (e.g., Santoro and
Mighell, 1970). The concept was also used in electron diffraction ex-
periments for unit-cell determination of crystalline phases (Kuo, 1978).
A modified cell reduction method was adopted in a computer program
package by Li (2005) and later by Zhao et al. (2008). A cell reduction
approach was recently described by Yang et al. (2017) for unit-cell
determination from three specially related SAED patterns. The relation
among the three SAED patterns allows the angle between each pair of
them to be calculated accurately.
A general 3D reciprocal lattice reconstruction method was discussed
by Fraundorf (1981) and a computer program with a visual 3D re-
ciprocal space for this purpose was developed by Zou et al. (2004). An
algorithm for unit-cell determination of crystalline phases from a col-
lection of randomly oriented SAED patterns was developed by Jiang
et al. (2009,2011). Electron diffraction tomography technique (Kolb
et al., 2007, 2008) and the diffraction rotation technique (Zou et al.,
2011) have recently attracted major interest. The diffraction rotation
technique aims to collect a complete data set of diffraction patterns in a
fashion similar to X-ray crystallography.
In this paper, the development on a new computer program,
TEMUC3, is described for unit-cell determination of crystalline phases
using electron diffraction data. Application examples and discussions
are given for the further elucidation.

⁎
Corresponding author at: 855N 16th Street, N201 NANO, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0298, United States.
E-mail address: xzli@unl.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2018.10.010
Received 6 July 2018; Received in revised form 31 October 2018; Accepted 31 October 2018
Available online 02 November 2018
0968-4328/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X.-Z. Li
Fig. 1. A flow chart of the Niggli cell reduction procedure in TEMUC3.
2. Approach
The data set for unit-cell determination of crystalline phases in
TEMUC3 is a tilt series of SAED patterns or three SAED patterns, in
which each pair shares a common reflection vector. A reflection vector
is a vector from the incident beam to a reflection spot. The basic pro-
cedures for unit-cell determination of crystalline phases using SAED
data are (i) a reciprocal lattice (or primitive cell), (ii) a direct lattice (or
primitive cell), (iii) a cell reduction if necessary, and (iv) a refinement
of lattice parameters.
The reconstruction of a reciprocal lattice from a tilt series of SAED
patterns is straightforward. Assuming there is one reflection vector on
each SAED pattern perpendicular to the common reflection vector in a
tilt series, a 2D lattice can be reconstructed on the basis of these re-
flection vectors and their tilt angles. A 3D lattice is then obtained by the
combination of the 2D lattice and the common reflection vector. In
SAED experiments, it is usually to select shortest reflection vector
among all the observed reflections to be the common reflection vector
in a tilt series of SAED patterns for unit-cell determination,
A flow chart of the Niggli cell reduction procedures in TEMUC3 is
shown in Fig. 1. In the first step, a primitive cell can be generated in two
methods, either (i) from two SAED patterns with a common vector and
a tilt angle between them (Li, 2005) or (ii) from three SAED patterns
with a common reflection vector among each pair of the patterns (Yang
et al., 2017). Fig. 2 shows the geometry to generate a primitive cell
from two SAED diffraction patterns. Assuming three vectors, a*, b*, c*,
span a primitive cell, where a* and b*, span the plane-1 and a* and c*
span the plane-2. The angle between plane-1 and plane-2 is φ. Thus the
angles of the primitive cell are α* = ∠ COQ (or ∠ POB), β* = ∠ TOQ
(ω1), γ* = ∠ TOC (ω2). The geometry to deduce a primitive cell from
three SAED patterns was described in the published paper by Yang et al.
(2017).
The second step is to transform the primitive cell from reciprocal
space to direct space. The third step is to make a cell reduction. An
algorithm developed by Krivy and Gruber (1976) was used in TEMUC3.
The fourth step is to convert from a Niggli cell to a conventional unit-
cell. The procedure proposed by Clegg (1981) was used in TEMUC3.
This procedure overcomes the problem by directly comparing the re-
duced cell to 44 forms of the Niggli cell. The final step is to index the
2
Micron 117 (2019) 1–7
Fig. 2. Geometry for generating a primitive cell from two SAED diffraction
patterns and the angle between them. Plane-1 and plane-2 are the two SAED
patterns and the angle between them is φ. A primitive cell is defined by a*, b*,
c* and α* = ∠ COQ (or ∠ POB), β* = ∠ TOQ (ω1), γ* = ∠ TOC (ω2).
SAED patterns and then to refine the lattice parameters. A general al-
gorithm of least-squares refinement was described in the previous paper
(Li, 2005). For the purpose of application, the refinement of lattice
parameters is better to carry out for seven crystal system separately.
The data set of reflection vectors are indexed within error tolerance and
then the lattice parameters can be refined using the lengths of reflection
vectors.
3. Program design and implementation
The graphic user interface of TEMUC3 consists of a menu system, a
display panel and multiple dialogs. Each of the dialog is designed for a
single task. The panel and dialogs can be activated from the menu
system and used in various combinations for the following modules, (i)
the traditional method for lattice reconstruction, (ii) two methods for
generation of primitive cells and then conventional unit-cells and (iii)
refinement of lattice parameters. Fig. 3 shows the menu system of
TEMUC3, the icons of a display panel and single task dialogs are shown
in the graphic menu bar.
In the implementation of the reciprocal lattice reconstruction
method, a panel is used to display the reflection data from a tilt series of
SAED patterns together with an adjustable lattice and a control dialog is
used to adjust the data and the lattice to fit them together. In this way, a
3D lattice is obtained and then forwarded to the next dialog for further
processing.
In the implementation of the Niggli cell reduction method, two
dialogs are designed to generate primitive cells from two different date
sets, one from two SAED patterns and the tilt angle between them (Li,
2005) and the other from three SAED patterns, in which each pair
shares a common reflection vector (Yang et al., 2017).
The reciprocal lattice or primitive cell is then forwarded into a
dialog for conversion of the lattice or primitive cell into direct space,
meanwhile the scale factor on the SAED patterns is used for unit con-
version. The next step is to make the cell reduction and the metric
symmetry search for a conventional unit-cell. The final step is the re-
finement of the lattice parameters using the lengths of reflection vectors
only. The refinement is formulated under the constraints of seven
Fig. 3. Menu system of TEMUC3. Icons of a display panel and multiple dialogs
are shown in the graphic menu bar, which can be activated and combined for
unit-cell determination in various modules.
X.-Z. Li
crystal systems.
TEMUC3 was written in Java and tested under Microsoft Windows 8
and 10. The executive code was packaged in an updated Landyne
software suite (Li, 2016), together with other standalone software. The
Landyne suite is available in the author’s webpage, https://www.unl.
edu/ncmn-cfem/xzli/computer-programs
A default data set was embedded in TEMUC3, which can be used for
tutorial purposes.
4. Application examples
The application of TEMUC3 is further elucidated in the following
examples. The example of a new CoFeCrGe phase was based on ex-
perimental data using the traditional lattice reconstruction method. The
examples of the Al5Co2 phase and Mg4Zn7 phases were based on si-
mulated data using the cell reduction methods of primitive cells by Li
(2005) and by Yang et al (2017), respectively. All SAED patterns were
measured by using QSAED3 (Li, 2018), which was designed for mea-
suring reflection vectors and retrieving diffraction intensities on ex-
perimental SAED patterns. The snapshots of the dialogs for data
handling in the examples are provided as supplemental materials.
4.1. Lattice reconstruction on a new CoFeCrGe phase
CoFeCrGe ribbons were prepared from an alloy ingot by melt
spinning and then annealed at 500 °C for 4 h. A new intermetallic
compound with an average composition of Co53.4Fe30.4Cr8.6Ge7.6 has
been observed and the unit-cell was determined using a tilt series of
SAED patterns (Jin et al., 2018).
Fig. 4 shows the experimental SAED patterns of the (Co, Fe)-rich
phase, (a–e) are in a tilt series and (f) is a separate one in 4-fold sym-
metry. The zone axes and reflection indices were labelled using the
determined lattice parameters. Table 1 lists the lengths of the two basic
reflection vectors and the tilt angle of each SAED pattern in the tilt
series. Since the reflection vectors in the first column were the common
reflection vector, an average value was used and the other reflection
vector in each SAED pattern was calibrated accordingly in TEMUC3.
Fig. 5 shows the experimental data set with a lattice (a) before and
(b) after fitting in TEMUC3. The fitting procedure was as follows: the
origin of coordinate was first shifted up; the lengths in the data set was
scaled down to show more points and then tilted to make the shortest
length along the horizontal axis; a lattice fitting to the data set was
Fig. 4. Experimental SAED patterns of a new compound in CoFeCrGe alloy, (a–e) a tilt series of SAED patterns and (f) a separate one in 4-fold symmetry. Zone axes
and reflection indices were calculated after the determined lattice parameters.
3
Micron 117 (2019) 1–7
Table 1
Experimental SAED data of a new compound in CoFeCrGe alloy in Fig. 4. The
lengths of the reflection vectors were retrieved using QSAED3 (Li, 2018). Scale
bar on SAED patterns is 2 nm−1 / 84 pixel.
SAED pattern V1 (pixel) V2 (pixel) Tilt angle (º)
a 111.0 147.2 20.2
b 110.8 298.9 9.0
c 110.0 298.6 30.8
d 108.6 153.9 39.7
e 106.6 180.0 57.9
found by adjusting the vertical and horizontal grids. The tilt operation,
as an option, was not needed in this case.
The reciprocal lattice was converted to a unit-cell in direct space
meanwhile the scale factor on the SAED patterns was used to convert
the unit from pixel to nm. A tetragonal unit-cell was obtained and also
confirmed in the SAED pattern in Fig. 4 (f). In order to check the va-
lidity of the lattice parameters, the SAED patterns were indexed and the
tilted angles in the tilt series were calculated using ProJECT/SPICA (Li,
2016).
Once the SAED patterns were successfully indexed, the lattice
parameters were refined using the lengths of reflection vectors. In the
refinement with electron diffraction data, it is not necessary that the
more numbers of reflections are used the more accurate lattice para-
meters to be obtained. It is important that the lengths of reflection
vectors for the refinement are measured precisely in the SAED patterns,
which are in symmetric intensity distribution and in relative low tilt
angles. In the present case, the lattice parameters were obtained from
the SAED pattern in refinement from the SAED patterns in Fig. 4(a–c)
and confirmed with the SAED pattern in Fig. 4(f), a = 0.759 nm and
c = 0.287 nm.
4.2. Cell reduction (i) on the Al5Co2 phase,
Experimental SAED patterns of the Al5Co2 phase (Newkirk et al.,
1961) were used as an example for the cell reduction method (Li,
2005). The same set of diffraction patterns was used as the application
example of the cell reduction (i) in TEMUC3. Fig. 6 shows the simulated
SAED patterns from the Al5Co2 phase, the first and second reflection
vectors were marked. Table 2 lists the lengths of the two basic reflection
vectors on SAED patterns, together with the angles between them. The
X.-Z. Li Micron 117 (2019) 1–7

Fig. 5. Experimental data set of a new compound in CoFeCrGe alloy with a 2D lattice (a) before and (b) after fitting in TEMUC3.

reflection vectors in the first column are the common one among the tilt Table 2
series of SAED patterns. SAED data of the Al5Co2 phase in Fig. 6. The angle between SAED patterns of A
Referring to the flow chart in Fig. 1, the following procedure was and B is 18.5° and the angle between SAED patterns of B and C is 18.4°. Scale
used for unit-cell determination: (i) a primitive cell was directly gen- bar on SAED patterns is 2 nm−1 / 84 pixels.
erated from two SAED patterns and the tilt angle between them; (ii) the SAED pattern V1 (pixel) V2 (pixel) Angle (º)
primitive cell was converted from reciprocal space to direct space; (iii)
the primitive cell was then converted to a Niggli cell by reduction and A 63.4 138.2 62.7
B 84.0 84 67.9
was then converted to a conventional unit-cell. The results are given in C 63.4 127.7 75.6
Tables 3 and 4, using the SAED patterns in Fig. 6(a–b) and (b–c), re-
spectively.
Table 5 lists the average results of the calculated lattice parameters the processing procedures in TEMUC3 and those in Yang et al (2017).
and the original data for comparison. It shows a slight difference be- Fig. 7 shows the simulated SAED patterns from the Mg4Zn7 phase, in
tween them due to the decimal round up when input data were pre- which the common reflection vectors for each pair of them were
pared for unit-cell determination. The zone axes and the reflection in- marked. Table 6 lists the lengths of the common reflection vectors for
dices in Fig. 6 were calculated using the calculated lattice parameters of the three SAED patterns in Fig. 7. A primitive cell was generated from
the hexagonal Al5Co2 phase. The refinement step was skipped since the three SAED patterns and then go through the similar procedure in
simulated data was used. section 4.2. The intermediate results are listed in Table 7. The calcu-
lated and original lattice parameters are listed in Table 8 for compar-
ison. As explained above, a slight difference between them is mainly
4.3. Cell reduction (ii) on the Mg4Zn7 phase
due to the decimal round up during the preparation of the input data.
The Mg4Zn7 phase (Yarmolyuk Ya et al., 1975) was used as an ap-
plication example for the cell reduction method by Yang et al. (2017).
The same set of diffraction patterns was also used as an example of the
cell reduction (ii) in TEMUC3. The example is used for comparison of

Fig. 6. Simulated SAED patterns from the Al5Co2 phase, the two basic reflection vectors were marked.

4
X.-Z. Li Micron 117 (2019) 1–7

Table 3 Table 6
The intermediate stages for the unit cell determination of the Al5Co2 phase from SAED data of the Mg4Zn7 phase, lengths and angles of the basic vectors V12, V23,
SAED patterns A and B in Table 2. V31 of the SAED patterns in Fig. 7. Scale bar on SAED patterns is 2 nm−1 / 84
pixels.
Primitive cell in reciprocal space (pixel, º)
SAED pattern V12 (pixel) V23 (pixel) V31 (pixel) Angle (º)
a* b* c* α* (º) β* (º) γ* (º)
63.4 138.2 84.0 17.572 67.9 62.7 a 81.9 — 33.1 78.3
b 81.9 30.1 — 87.6
Unit cell in direct space before cell reduction (nm, º) c — 30.1 33.1 77.8

a b c α (º) β (º) γ (º)

0.77 1.08 1.7 161.5 76.85 110.94 Table 7
Conventional unit cell in direct space (nm, º) The intermediate stages for the unit cell determination of Mg4Zn7 phase from
the data in Table 6.
a b c α (º) β (º) γ (º)
Primitive cell in reciprocal space (pixel, º)
0.76 0.77 0.77 119.89 89.94 90.00
a* b* c* α* (º) β* (º) γ* (º)
81.9 30.1 33.1 77.8 78.3 87.6
Table 4
The intermediate stages for the unit cell determination of Al5Co2 phase from the
Unit cell in direct space before cell reduction (nm, º)
SAED patterns B and C in Table 2.
Primitive cell in reciprocal space (pixel, º) a b c α (º) β (º) γ (º)
0.52 1.43 1.32 101.97 101.45 89.94
a* b* c* α* (º) β* (º) γ* (º)
Conventional unit cell in direct space (nm, º)
63.4 84.0 127.7 19.073 75.6 67.9

a b c α (º) β (º) γ (º)

Unit cell in direct space before cell reduction (nm, º) 2.59 0.52 1.43 90.06 102.2 89.91

a b c α (º) β (º) γ (º)

0.76 1.71 1.08 161.6 69.33 116.49 Table 8
Conventional unit cell in direct space (nm, º) Lattice parameters of the Mg4Zn7 phase were derived from the data in Table 6,
using the Niggli cell reduction method.
a b c α (º) β (º) γ (º)
Parameters Determined Reference*
0.76 0.76 0.76 89.95 60.3 89.98
a (nm) 2.59 2.596
b (nm) 0.52 0.524
Table 5 c (nm) 1.43 1.428
Lattice parameters of the Al5Co2 phase were derived from the data in Table 2, α (º) 90.06 (∼90) 90
using the Niggli cell reduction method. β (º) 102.2 102.5
γ (º) 89.91 (∼90) 90
Parameters Averaged Reference*

a (nm) 0.765 0.7656 * Data from https://materialsproject.org/materials/mp-680671/#.

b (nm) 0.765 0.7656
c (nm) 0.760 0.75932 data. Each has its own advantages and application scenarios.
α (º) 89.95 (∼90) 90 Traditionally a tilt series of SAED patterns are collected for the re-
β (º) 89.99 (∼90) 90
construction of the reciprocal lattice. This is still one the most useful
γ (º) 119.80 (∼120) 120
methods in the unit-cell determination for new intermetallic phases.
* Data from Person’s handbook. However, it is difficult to apply to a triclinic system or to a monoclinic
system if its unique axis is not selected as the common reflection vector.
5. Discussion This method was used on a piece of paper in the early days. With
TEMUC3, the procedure can be carried out fast and conveniently.
5.1. Application scenarios The diffraction tomography has been developed which can be
viewed in a way as the extension of the method above. In the new
There are various methodologies and software available for unit-cell method, electron diffraction patterns are recorded in a continuous tilt of
determination of unknown crystalline phases from electron diffraction the crystal sample in a fine step and a data set of diffraction intensities

Fig. 7. Simulated SAED patterns from the Mg4Zn7 phase, the two basic reflection vectors were marked. Each pair in the three SAED patterns shares a common
reflection vector.

5
X.-Z. Li Micron 117 (2019) 1–7

is collected. Lattice parameters can be calculated from the data set with
computer software (Kolb et al., 2007; Zhang, 2010). This method may
require much longer experimental time. Therefore, if the determination
of unit-cell is the only requisite task, the traditional method is more
efficient.
One of the advantages in the Niggli cell reduction method is it can
be applied to all seven crystal systems. The cell reduction method i in
TEMUC3 requires an accurate measurement of the tilt angle between
two SAED patterns. In the approach proposed by Yang et al. (2017), the
tilt angles can be calculated directly from electron diffraction data. Of
course, the benefit comes from the burden of the work load on the
experimental work. This approach was adopted in TEMUC3 as the cell
reduction method ii.
An algorithm was provided for unit-cell determination from ran-
domly oriented electron diffraction patterns (Jiang et al., 2009,2011).
This method was applied to the samples which is sensitive to the
electron beam or crystalline particles. Since a set of electron diffraction
patterns are collected from randomly oriented samples, the patterns
must be obtained from a single phase. It will be challenging to use this
method if a small amount of second phase exists in samples.

Fig. 8. A 2D analog to show the generation of primitive cells. Cells spanned by

5.2. Niggli cell reduction in reciprocal space or direct space
The approach proposed by Yang et al. (2017) was carried out a cell
reduction in reciprocal space and the numeric label of the Niggli cell
was used directly for the conversion of a reduced cell to a conventional
unit-cell. In the present work, the cell reduction was carried out in di-
rect space and the procedure proposed by Clegg (1981) was used for the
conversion. In comparison with the conversion based on the Niggli
number, the Clegg’s method is more robust for the conversion.
It is no doubt that the cell reduction can be processed in reciprocal
space and direct space for unit-cell determination, as an evident in the
examples of the Mg4Zn7 phase above. Since unit-cells of monoclinic and
triclinic phases are required to be in the form of a reduced cell, the cell
reduction in direct space can be also used as a tool for check and
conversion.
5.3. Niggli cell reduction method in SAED experiments
In the cell reduction method, a true primitive cell in reciprocal space
is a starting point, which should be generated with caution. In order to
explain this issue in a simple way, a 2D analog is shown in Fig. 8, the
cells spanned by V1 and V2 or V1 and V3 (V3 = V2 + V1) or V1 and V4
or V2 and V3 are the true primitive cells. On the other hand, the cells
spanned by V2 and V4 or V3 and V4 are not true primitive cells.
In order to obtain a primitive cell from SAED experiments, a set of
SAED patterns should be collected, in which the SAED pattern with the
shortest diffraction vector should be selected and then the most ad-
jacent SAED pattern be selected as a starting point for unit-cell de-
termination.
5.4. Unit-cell refinement in SAED experiments
V1 and V2 or V1 and V3 (V3 - V1 = V2) or V1 and V4 or V2 and V3 are true
primitive cells. On the other hand, the cells spanned by V2 and V4 or V3 and V4
are not true primitive cells.
5.5. Collection of experimental data
The accuracy of lattice constant measurements is not only de-
termined by advanced software but more important by accurate ex-
perimental data. The efforts to minimize the errors should be carried
out in experiments, e.g., always tilting the crystals in the same tilt di-
rections and these consecutive tilting diffraction patterns should been
taken with their goniometer and holder in low tilting angles; calibration
of camera constant or scale bar on the diffraction pattern is needed, the
one method is to coat a thin layer of Au on sample and thus to get a set
of diffraction rings as internal standard.
After the lattice parameters of unit cell have been determined, all
available experimental diffraction patterns should be indexed with the
help of, e.g., SAED3 (Li, 2012) and SPICA (Li, 2016). Space group of the
lattice can be further derived by examining the extinction rules in ex-
perimental diffraction patterns.
6. Conclusion remarks
A new computer program, TEMUC3, has been developed for unit-
cell determination in electron diffraction experiments. A graphic user-
friendly interface was designed for unit-cell determination in a set of
modules, including a traditional reconstruction of reciprocal lattice
from a tilt series of SAED patterns; the approach in the author’s pre-
vious paper (Li, 2005); and the approach proposed recently by Yang
et al. (2017). The module for unit-cell refinement was upgraded in
TEMUC3 with constraint to seven crystal systems for practical purposes.

Tilt angles in a tilt series of SAED patterns are important for the
initial stage of unit-cell determination. Once the lattice parameters
were approximately determined, the set of SAED patterns can be in-
dexed with error tolerance. Only the lengths of the reflection vectors
are used for the refinement of lattice parameters. Therefore, even the
tilt angles are hardly obtained accurately in electron diffraction ex-
periments, the measurement of lattice parameters are limited only by
the error on lengths of the diffraction vectors. The accurate of mea-
surement on digital graphics can be achieved down to subpixel (Li,
2018).
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank A. Sarella and J. Doyle for their help
to improve the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2018.10.010.

6
X.-Z. Li
References
Clegg, W., 1981. Cell reduction and lattice symmetry determination. Acta Cryst. A 37,
913–915.
Fraundorf, P., 1981. Stereo analysis of single crystal electron diffraction data.
Ultramicroscopy 6, 227–235.
Gruber, B., 1973. The relationship between reduced cells in a general Bravais lattice. Acta
Cryst. A 29, 433–440.
Jiang, L.H., Georgieva, D., Zandbergen, H.W., Abrahamsa, J.P., 2009. Unit-cell de-
termination from randomly oriented electron-diffraction patterns. Acta Cryst. D Biol
Cryst. 65, 625–632.
Jiang, L.H., Georgieva, D., Abrahams, J.P., 2011. EDIFF: a program for automated unit-
cell determination and indexing of electron diffraction data. J. Appl. Cryst. 44,
1132–1136.
Jin, Y.L., Li, X.-Z., Sellmyer, D.J., 2018. A new tetragonal phase in CoFeCrGe Heusler
alloy. Mater. Charact. 136 302309.
Kolb, U., Gorelik, T., Ku¨bel, C.M.T., Otten, M.T., Hubert, D., 2007. Towards automated
diffraction tomography: Part I—Data acquisition. Ultramicroscopy 2007 (107), 507.
Krivy, I., Gruber, B., 1976. A unified algorithm for determining the reduced (Niggli) cell.
Acta Cryst. A 32, 297–298.
Kuo, K.H., 1978. Reduced cells and the indexing of electron diffraction patterns (in
Chinese). Acta Phys. Sin. 2, 160–168.
Li, X.-Z., 2005. Computer programs for unit-cell determination in electron diffraction
experiments. Ultramicroscopy 102, 269–277.
Li, X.-Z., 2012. Software design for simulation and analysis of electron diffraction pat-
terns. Micro. Microa. 18 (S2), 1262–1263.
Micron 117 (2019) 1–7
Li, X.-Z., 2016. SPICA - Stereographic projection for Interactive crystallographic analysis.
J. Appl. Cryst. 49, 1818–1826.
Li, X.-Z., 2018. QSAED3, a program for quantification and processing of SAED patterns.
Micros. Microa. 24 (S1), 582–583.
Newkirk, J.B., Black, P.J., Damjanovic, A., 1961. The refinement of the Co2Al5 structure.
Acta Cryst. 14, 532–533.
Niggli, P., 1928. Kristallographische und Strukturtheoretische Grundbegriffe. Handbuch
der Experimentalphysik Band 7, 107–176.
Santoro, A., Mighell, A.D., 1970. Determination of reduced cells. Acta Cryst. 26, 124–127.
Vainshtein, B.K., 1964. In: Feigl, E., Spink, J.A. (Eds.), Structure Analysis by Electron
Diffraction. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Yang, Y., Cai, C.Y., Lin, J.G., Gong, L.J., Yang, Q.B., 2017. Accurate determination of
lattice parameters based on Niggli reduced cell theory by using digitized electron
diffraction micrograph. Micron 96, 9–15.
Yarmolyuk Ya, P., Kripyakevich, P.I., Melnik, E.V., 1975. Crystal structure of the com-
pound Mg4Zn7. Soviet Physics-Crystallography, Translated from Kristallografiya 20.
pp. 329–331.
Zhang, D.L., 2010. 3D Electron crystallography. Doctoral Thesis. Stockholm University.
Zhao, H.S., Wu, D.Q., Yao, J.C., Chang, A.M., 2008. QtUCP—A program for determining
unit-cell parameters in electron diffraction experiments using double-tilt and rota-
tion-tilt holders. Ultramicroscopy 108, 1540–1545.
Zou, X.D., Hovmoller, A., Hovmoller, S., 2004. TRICE—a program for reconstructing 3D
reciprocal space and determining unit-cell parameters. Ultramicroscopy 98, 187–193.
Zou, X.D., Hovmöller, S., Oleynikov, P., 2011. Electron Microscopy and Electron
Diffraction. Oxford University Press ISBN-13: 978-0-19-958020-0.