2.4.13 · D5States of Matter (Quantitative)

Question bank — Cubic systems — SCC, BCC, FCC; packing fraction calculations

1,956 words9 min readBack to topic

Before any trap, we lay down every symbol and abbreviation so nothing on this page is assumed.


The three geometric facts this whole page rests on

Every trap below is a disguised test of which atoms touch and what length that contact line spans. Here is each one derived, with a picture.

The one idea behind every question below: you must know which atoms actually touch before you can relate radius to edge . SCC touches along the edge, BCC along the body diagonal, FCC along the face diagonal. Everything traps you the moment you forget this.


True or false — justify

In BCC the eight corner atoms touch each other along the edge.
False. In BCC only the body-centre atom bridges the corners; corner atoms are held apart, so contact runs along the body diagonal (), never the edge.
Packing fraction depends on the atomic radius .
False. Every in the numerator cancels an in , leaving a pure number (, , ). Packing fraction is a property of the arrangement, not the atom size.
FCC and CCP describe the same packing.
True. The face-centred cubic cell is just one way to draw the cubic close-packed lattice; they have identical packing () and coordination number 12. See Close Packing — HCP vs CCP.
HCP and FCC have different packing fractions because they look different.
False. Both are close-packed with ; they differ only in stacking order (ABAB vs ABCABC), not in how tightly space is filled.
A body-centred cubic cell contains 2 whole atoms.
True. (corners) (body centre) . The centre atom lies entirely inside, so it counts as a full 1.
Doubling the edge of an SCC cell doubles its packing fraction.
False. Packing fraction is dimensionless and fixed at for SCC regardless of ; scaling the box scales the atoms too, so the ratio is unchanged.
The empty space in FCC is larger than in SCC.
False. FCC empty , SCC empty . FCC is the tightest of the three, so it has the least empty space.
Coordination number and packing fraction always rise together across SCC→BCC→FCC.
True here. SCC (6, 52.4%), BCC (8, 68%), FCC (12, 74%): denser packing means each atom touches more neighbours. See Coordination Number in Crystals.

Spot the error

"BCC copper: I used so pm."
Error: is the SCC relation. BCC needs , i.e. . Using the edge relation gives a wrong (too small) edge and wrong density.
"FCC has because I counted the 8 corners."
Error: the 6 face-centre atoms were forgotten. . Corner-only counting is the SCC habit leaking in.
"Density: pm, so pm³, done."
Error: units never converted. Density in g/cm³ needs in cm; cm, so cubing multiplies the error by . Convert before cubing. See Density of a Unit Cell.
"Face diagonal of a cube of edge is ."
Error: is the body diagonal (spans three dimensions). The face diagonal lies in one square face and is . See Pythagoras Theorem.
"In BCC the body diagonal equals ."
Error: three atoms lie along the body diagonal (corner–centre–corner), touching over two radii on each side, so the diagonal , giving .
"Packing fraction of FCC is ."
Error: is SCC. FCC is . The mix-up comes from reusing the SCC edge relation instead of the face-diagonal one.
"Mass of one atom is ."
Error: it is . is grams per mole and atoms make a mole, so one atom weighs divided by . See Avogadro Number and Molar Mass.

Why questions

Why do we count a corner atom as and not a whole atom?
A corner is the meeting point of neighbouring cubes, so each cube owns only one-eighth of that shared sphere.
Why does the atom radius cancel out of every packing fraction?
Atom volume goes as and the cube volume is proportional to (since is a fixed multiple of ), so their ratio is a pure geometric constant.
Why must we identify the touch direction before writing the relation?
Only along the touch direction do sphere surfaces actually meet, so only there does the sum of radii equal a known length of the cube — that is the single equation linking to .
Why is FCC called "closest packing"?
At it fills more of space than any other cubic arrangement; spheres nestle into the dimples of the layer below, leaving the least possible gaps.
Why does BCC pack tighter than SCC even though both have corner atoms?
The extra body-centre atom slips into the large central void, adding filled volume for the same box, raising packing from to .
Why do we need in centimetres for density in g/cm³?
Density is mass over volume; if mass is in grams the volume must be in cm³, so the edge must be in cm before it is cubed.
Why can two different unit-cell drawings (FCC vs CCP) describe one crystal?
A unit cell is just a repeating tile choice; different tiles can regenerate the same infinite lattice, so the same close-packed solid can be framed as face-centred cubic. See Close Packing — HCP vs CCP.

Edge cases

If an SCC cell had zero atoms at corners (empty box), what is its packing fraction?
— with no spheres the numerator vanishes; packing fraction is only meaningful once atoms occupy positions.
Could a hypothetical structure ever reach packing?
No for hard spheres — round objects always leave gaps; the densest possible sphere packing tops out near , the FCC/HCP value.
If atoms stay touching but shrink together with the box (both and halved), does the packing fraction change?
No — since still holds, stays exactly ; the ratio of atom volume to box volume is scale-free, so shrinking everything together changes nothing.
If instead the box is held fixed while atoms shrink toward a point (, atoms no longer touching), what happens to the packing fraction?
It falls toward — the numerator while stays fixed, so the filled fraction vanishes. (This is a different scenario from the touching case above: here .)
Does an atom sitting on an edge (not corner) contribute ?
No — an edge is shared by only cubes, so an edge atom contributes ; only corners (shared by 8) give .
If we picked a bigger, non-primitive box containing 8 SCC cells, does the packing fraction change?
No — it stays ; enlarging the tile multiplies both atom volume and box volume by 8, and the ratio is unchanged.
In BCC, if you wrongly assume corners touch, is your predicted density too high or too low?
Too high — assuming gives a smaller edge than the true , shrinking in the denominator and inflating .
Between two octahedral-void-rich structures, does having more voids mean looser packing?
Not necessarily — FCC has many voids yet is the tightest packing; voids are just leftover gaps between touching spheres, catalogued in Voids — Tetrahedral and Octahedral.

Recall One-line summary of every trap

Almost every mistake on this page is the same mistake wearing a costume: using the wrong touch direction (edge vs face vs body diagonal), or the wrong atom count . Fix the touch direction first, count second, and no trap survives.